Letter to NP re Church fires 12/30/2009

Church Fires Can't be Ignored

Imagine, two church fires, one in Oshawa and one in Durham region and the police have no idea who did it except to say that the latter was done by copycats. Who in Canada would want to destroy a Catholic church? There are only two probabilites. Either the fires were set by ignorant destructive young men or it was set by Islamists. Am I being Islamophobic? No. Christianity is now being attacked in Nigeria, Egypt, the West Bank, Gaza, and Darfur. In addition it is being denigrated in many of the Islamic countries. Among Islamists, Christians are negatively referred to as infidels. So let's not waste the police's time. Have them investigate local gangs and local radical Islamists. The odds are strongly suggestive that it is the latter group that is responsible. Let's forget political correctness and investigate this is as a hate crime and let's concentrate on those Islamists most likely to have had something to do with it.

letter to National Post re Christian Horizons Dec 21

Re: Christian Horizons

We all agree that the Christian Horizons are doing a great job in caring for the sick and disabled. We also agree that they are inspired by their religious beliefs and use that as a basis of their altruism. Does that however give them the right to break Canadian law or act in such a way that would be considered to be unjust by our laws and by most of our society? Do good deeds exonerate you from bad deeds? Does a religious tradition, based on the writings in a holy book justify actions that Canadian society and laws consider to be wrong or even evil? A judgement in favour of Christian Horizons would place gays in the position of being unable to obtain jobs in any religious charitable or educational organization. Is this what Canadians really want? In law, as a function of sentencing we consider the reputation of the person being sentences but we don't exempt them from their illegal actions. Should Conrad Black be acquitted of his actions because the majority of his financial transactions were within the law? Should a man who kills his wife (perhaps in a mercy killing) after 30 years of a good marriage not be charged with murder? Similarly, the Koran permits a husband to beat his wife under certain circumstances. Should we look the other way because the action is permitted in many Muslim countries and is recommended by a holy book? Isn't it time that Canadian laws and justice take precedence over religious prejudices and actions that are written in holy books and believed by some of the religion's followers?

Letter to Toronto Star Dec 18th

On the basis of climate change, I too think that the U.S. and Canada should fund the underdevelopped nations, without restrictions, with hundreds of billions of dollars. With these funds Indian companies will be able to buy more of our steel companies, China will be able to buy more Canadian resource companies, Egypt can better compete with our telecom companies, the Saudis will be able to send more Wahibis to support our mosques and infiltrate our universities, and with luck the North Koreans or the Iraquis will be able to buy our nuclear reactors. It is like the ads on television for many medicines - the medicine will help if the side effects don't kill you.

Letter to National Post Dec 18th

How can Mr. Harper not support a U.N. plan that will limit Canada's oil sands output and provide enough funding to enable underdeveloped countries like China to buy our resources, hotel chains and steel mills? How can he be so "passive"? Imagine the Canadian voters' jealousy when they look across the border to see the altruism of Americans who are giving 100 billion to underdeveloped countries while their own people are losing their homes because they are unemployed. Yes, we are disappointed that Mr. Harper is not trashing our economy in order to support all the poorer world countries, most of whom incidentally despise the west, all on the grounds of questionable global warming theories. Perhaps, when global warming forces our temperatures above the bitterly freezing temperatures that we now have across Canada, it will warm Mr. Harper's heart enough to have him follow the U.S. example and give our wealth away to others to squander, build nuclear weapons, or buy our economic treasures.

Ontario's Negligent Funding

The case of the Christian Horizons organization brings out two interesting questions. How far will the idea that all religious thought and actions are equivalent be allowed to proceed and to favour freedom of religion over all other freedoms; and how much prosyletizing and imposing of one's religious views on others will be accepted and subsibsidized by the Ontario government before it is considered to be excessive. To me, freedom of religion means freedom to practice one's religion in private, not necessarily freedom to prosyletize and certainly not freedom to impose private religious views on the public or those who are in some way reliant on you. In addition religious practices must not be contrary to criminal law. I do not want my taxes spent on people who would subtly and often not subtly push their religious views, practices, and prejudices on others. This is clearly what the Christian Horizon organization did. Recently I became aware that there was a booth in the Word of the Street festival that prosyletied for Islam. Word on the Street is Ontario's book and magazine publishers' festival and is supported by the Ontario government through the Ontario Media Development Corporation . The festival has nothing to do with the benefits of the Koran, so that booth should not have been there. In reply to my letter to the Ontario government notifying them about the misuse of their funds, and my taxes, I received a letter from Aileen Carroll the Minister of Culture, who told me to contact Word on the Street. In other words she was telling me that Ontario had no interest in what the funds were really used for and whether the funds had been misapplied. Since the real use of public funds has been ignored twice to my knowledge by the Ontario government, it appears to me that Ontario is being extremely lax or just plain negligent in its funding policies. If the name of the organization sounds good, Ontario will fund it and they don't monitor how the funds, my tax money, is spent. This is not only disappointing, but is a failure of their responsibilty to me, an Ontario resident and a taxpayer.

Letter to MacLean's re Harper's position on Global Waming

It seems like only yesterday that the Liberals accused Mr. Harper of not caring enough about Canadians because he were not spending enough money to protect Canadians from the serious economic disaster of a recession. Now that the recession has proved as mild as Mr. Harper predicted, Mr. Ignatieff is accusing Mr. Harper of gross overspending and having forgotten his and Conservative principles.
That tune seems to have played so well that again the Liberals are accusing Mr. Harper of not caring enough about global warming because he refuses to take the heart out of the Canadian economy over a now very questionable global warming caused by overuse of resources.

Whether it concerns a recession or global warming, the Harper government has acted cautiously to protect Canadians from being sacrificed on the alter of world hysteria. I think he deserves a lot of credit for his tough stand in protecting Canada from the latest
internationally fed, perhaps imaginary, crisis.

Letter to the Globe Dec 15th - re England

Jolly Old England

Tony Blair has the audacity to publically criticize Canada's position on global warming; Engand's laws permit visiting Israeli politicians to be subject to accusations of war crimes; England's new anti-semitic movie, "The Education" is enjoying rave reviews;
and the country is quickly caving in to the demands of native born radical Islamists. It seems that jolly old England isn't so jolly anymore.

Letter to the Toronto Sun Dec 13th

Banning minarets and 1930

Eric Margolis' column should be put with the funnies. His ideas are off the cuff and without any relationship to the facts. Comparing the Swiss banning of minarets to 1930 Germany is completely outrageous. In 1933 there were some 505,000 Germany Jews or 0.75% of the population. Today there are 300,000 Muslims in Switzerland or 4.26% of the population. In 1933 there were about 15.3 million Jews in the world compared to the 1.66 billion Muslims in the world today. At no time, and particularly in the 1930's, did any Jews want to take over any country in Europe. Any fear of that would have been totally unrealistic and come from the fraudulent Elders of Zion book. However today radical Islam is quite clear that it wishes to make the whole world part of Islam, based on the interpretation of the Koran. The comparing the Swiss who want to protect their country and religion against a potential and realistic threat with Germany's simple anti-semitic desire to rid the world of a small and peaceful people is unbelievable.

Letter to the Toronto Star - re Siddiqui

Siddiqui stumps no one.

Afghanistan hasn't stumped Harper as Siddiqui suggests. It has stumped the Muslim community. Why, even with the help of the West, haven't Afghanis been able to lift themselves up by the bootstraps to get rid of the Taliban and make decent lives for themselves? What is it about the interpretation of the Koran which has stopped the Afghanis men from achieving freedom and not given Afghani women freedom to benefit themselves and society?

No, it is not Afghanistan that has stumped the West but the question of how a reasonable Muslim person can become an Islamist.

letter to teh Globe - Dec 14th - Sheema Khan

Self development

Sheema Khan's story of the effects of performing the hajj is very inspiring but like tales of miraculous cures from snake oil doesn't deal with those millions of Muslims who have performed the hajj without any benefits whatsoever. However her story was worthwhile until the last line which was "Let's hope our politicians take heed". Instead of politicians, she should have encouraged the Imams, Muslim community leaders and individual Muslims to take heed and develop the atmosphere needed to reproduce as best as possible the benefits of performing a hajj like ritual right here in Canada. Each Jewish house has an amulet (called a Mezzuzah) on the door to remind Jews that they should behave in their home as if it were a religious temple. Perhaps Canadian Muslims should have their own amulet to remind them to behave as if they had just performed the hajj.

comment on Chicken Little and climate

Why are usually staid scintists yelling the Chicken Little syndrome of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"? It is not falling. It time to quietly take some small steps, and cease the panic.

Comment on CBC reporting- December 5th

It seems to me that whenever anything obviously good is done by the Conservatives, the CBC says, " It is good even though it was done for political purposes." So now even when the Conservatives do good work, the CBC has an automatic put-down available. Perhaps its time for the CBC to be "put down".

Third letter to the Globe - Copenhagen conference

After criticizing Harper for following the U.S., the Globe's editorial now criticizes him for not following Obama to the Copenhagen conference. Make up your mind. Contrary to your editorial, Harper is showing leadership by refusing to attend meetings of international flap-jaws and spending his time in potentially useful meetings.

Two letter to the Globe - Nov 26

1. The Globe's front page has two major articles. The first deals with success in rescuing
a Canadian from torture by the Somalis and the other is a criticism of Canadian leaders who may have
allowed Canadian soldiers to hand over Afghani prisoners to the local government to be tortured.
What is clear is that torture is part of the culture of much of the non-western world and if we have to be there
we must accept this barbaric custom as normal for them. We continually look away from torture used by our
allies in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and many of the African countries. Canadians certainly should participate
in it as little as possible, but sometimes in a war, it is not possible to adhere to political and social niceties.

2. Israel's offer of a new settlement freeze has been rejected by the Palestinian leasership as as not enough
to begin peace talks. The message is clear. For the Palestinians, either a Palestinian state or Israel can
exist in the area, but not both. Since Israel will remain, peace can only come through the annexation of the
the West bank by Israel, as Jordan has absolutely rejected it. What happens to the local Arabs after this
will no longer concern the world as it will be an "internal matter".

incitement to genocide

The other day I went to see a mock trial of Ahmadinejad on charges of incitement to genocide put on by the Simon Weisenthal Centre. It is clear that genocide can use weapons like ovens, machetes, or bombs and it is still genocide. To his credit Cotler has brought the suggestion to try Ahmadinejad in an international court on a private members bill to the Canadian parliament. However my question is as follows. If we want to try Ahmadinejad before an international court, why is Cotler and most of the world supporting a two state solution? Both Hamas, which will probably govern a Palestinian state, and Fatah, are undoubtedly guilty of inciting to genocide. It is only necessary to look at their constitutions and their hatred expressed in their children's books and radio and TV programing to see the truth of this. Why support the establishment of a state whose leaders are already guilty of inciting to genocide? It may be politically correct, but isn't it suicidal?

Letter to the Globe - Simpson - the Liberal Spin

I'm afraid Mr. Simpson's head must have been spinning when he talked about the Conservative spin machine. He must have meant the Liberal spin machine, not the Conservative one.. The Liberals found people who disagree wth the useless and extremely costly gun control laws. Big deal. It should have been repealed long ago. Secondly, the Liberals complained that the Conservatives gave probable terrorists to their countrymen to do what they wanted with them. What else were they to do, set up another Guantanamo Bay or perhaps free them so they could return to kill more Canadian soldiers? If the latter happened the Liberals would jump on Consevative policy. Lastly the Liberals criticized the Conservatives for saying they were more pro-Israel than the Liberals. Firstly it is obvious from the voting patterns at the UN that they are, and secondly it implies that the Liberals never supported a particular issue of a minority group in order to get votes. Please! What hypocracy! The Liberal spin machine is spinning so fast that Ignatieff is falling off his perch.

Re: National Post - Nov 19th

Funny I thought that people went to university to learn for their future life. Apparently Father de Souza would be disappointed if, after graduation, one of his football players ended up as a professional doctor, lawyer or priest, instead of a football player.

Welcome back Mark Steyn to the National Post. It is another reason to keep reading Canada's best paper.

Harper's "nobnobing" with Chabad in India is indicative of his fight against terrorism whether the terrorism is against the strong or the weak, and wherever it occurs. It is wholly admirable.

The assumption that East Jerusalem is Arab lands because more Arabs than Jews live there has no more validity than saying that Bramalea and Detroit are Arab lands because more Arabs than others live in those two places.

If Jew-haters on campus and Islamic countries can say Nazism = Zionism why can't B'nai Brith etc publish an ad that Islamist = Nazism? Shouldn't the former be protested more strongly than the latter and the hatred shown in the former have been protested loudly for years as it has been going on for years? Isn't the constant Zionism = Nazism proof that Islamism = Nazism?

National Post - who is a Jew? - Nov 16th

Who is a Jew

It is quite clear that since there are Ethiopian Jews who look like Ethiopians, Indian Jews who look like Indians, Iranian Jews who look like Iranians, Syrian Jews who look like Arabs, and Scandinavian Jews who look like Scandinavians, Jews are not a race. They are a culture, a civilization, a religion or more likely, a combination of all three. Suggesting that Jews are a race is a show of ignorance. Jews are a small minority of the population and it is easy to look at them and avoid the larger, more immediate and more important questions that should have been raised by this court case. As Jews are generally peaceful, the important question after the Hasan incident is "Who is a Muslim? Is it a person of peace or a radical Islamist jihadist?" Another question is "If a religion shows prejudice or racism against others, such as the prejudice shown against Gays by all three Abramic religions, what should the state do and should the religious institution have state funding?"

The real question is not whether Jews constitute a race, but whether religions should be exempt from the standards of morality and the values of the host country.

Discover Canada

There should be a mandatory test on the new Discover Canada document for new driver's licence applicants. This would especially apply to new immigrants and the young applying for licences for the first time. Later, if successful, it could apply periodically to all licence renewals.

Lorne Gunter in the National Post 11/11

This is a great article by Gunter in today's National Post. I would like to add my comments. The first is that we should not be Islamophobic but we should be Islamist-phobic or Islamofascism-phobic. Following Burke, it is our duty is speak out against evil. When political correctness is used to avoid speaking out against evil, it itself is evil. The source of this evil is obviously mosques and madrasses. It is time to close down all institutions that teach radical Islam. Logic should tell us that our safety and culture must trump the free speech of Islamofascists. Religion must no longer be a cover up for incitement to murder and mayhem. John Tory lost the last election because he didn't see this self-evident truth.

Ruth Wisse's lecture and Jordan acquiring part of the West Bank

Ruth Wisse

Last night I went to the Ruth Wisse lecture at Holy Blossom. It was excellent. It was a continuation of the thoughts in her book, Jews and Power but updated to the current time. She will undoubtedly make the speech into an article in due course.

Meanwhile these were her main points.

One of the good things about Judaism is that it suggests that a person is responsible for what happens to him and what happens in the world. This makes for great achievements but it also means that Jes think that they are responsible for political occurrences that don’t work out for the best. But Jews are not responsible for the political positions of others and their ability to change politics by their own deeds is extremely limited. Thus giving away more Israeli land is a useless exercise in that it changes nothing.

Know before whom you stand applies to God, not to politicians. Jews must realize the difference. Blacks have been successful in changing their political fortunes in America. They haven’t looked at themselves and said that they must effect the change. They said that America must change – and fortunately it changed for them although it has not politically changed for Jews. The changes were not due primary to Black activism but primarily to the general culture and circumstances of America

No one else is as self-critical as Jews. You don’t find any other group that holds meetings to criticize themselves as Jews do. This is not beneficial to Jews or Israel. It divides them and gives ammunition to the enemy

When Jews stopped following the Torah they replaced it by liberalism. Thus Jews are liberals even to their obvious detriment ie they have replaced the Jewish religion by some of its better social aspects but without understanding the consequences of what they are doing.

Ruth Wisse’s lecture and someone on Facebook suggesting that intelligent people came up with dumb answers had me thinking about the solution to the Arab-Israeli. My answer for a long time is that Jordan and Israel should split the West Bank. But they say that Jordan doesn’t want it. Why not? All countries want more land. The usual explanation is that they are afraid of destabilization. However I would suggest that the real reason is that they are being pressured by the other 22 Muslim countries not to take over part of the West Bank so that the conflict can continue and that eventually they hope Israel will be destroyed. Alternately, if Ruth Wisse is correct, Israel should stop feeling that the West Bank is their fault, build a fence around itself, call it their border and absolutely stop all Arabs from entering Israel. If the UN does not fund the West Bank Arab economy, then the people will either starve or join Jordan. In either case, it will be better for Israel and not their responsibility.

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch says it spends a proportionate amount of time on Israel as other countries.
Umm. Saudi Arabi is not a paragone of Human Rights Freedoms. It has 2,240,000 square kilometers in area and in 1997, a population of 16,000,000 people which now must be at least 25,000,ooo people. Israel has an area of 21,000 square kilometers or 1/100th of the area of Saudia Arabia and currently a population of about 7,000,000 people or between 1/3 and 1/4 of the population. Human Rights Watch should be spending between 3 and 100 times the amount of time on Saudi Arabia.Yet it is obvious that Human Rights Watch and everyone else spends much more time on Israeli Human rights than on the much more serious Saudi human rights. So Human Rights Watch has most likely lied and Siddiqui has printed the lies. Am I surprised? No. Am I disappointed? Yes.

Re: Toronto Star

Well, I have received a few free Toronto Stars and they did the expected. They printed my rather irrelevant letter and didn't print the important one. Today there was an article by Siddiqui where Human Rights Watch said they spend a proportionate amount of time on Israel as they do other places. umm lets see - New Jersey is about the same size as Israel and has 1/3 more population than Israel. How much time does Human Rights Watch spend monitoring New Jersey? I have been boycotting the Star for years. Its foreign news has moved from moderate left to extreme left. I would suggest that it is not only not worth paying for and thereby supporting but it is not worth reading.

Printed letter
If we let short term workers into Canada who in practice stay here and become undocumented, isn't the answer to ensure Canada's unemployed get the jobs, and not as Siddiqui suggests, to let them in as permanent immigrants?

Not printed letter


Linda McQuaig has an interesting argument. She believes that Harper is an extremist because he supports the continued existence of a member of the United Nations - Israel. I presume that supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist organizations, is therefore a moderate stance. Harper even objects to universities that hold meetings to publicize Israel's anti-apartheid policies. The fact that Israel is not an apartheid state, and gives its minorities more rights than any of its neighbours seems only relevant to extremists like Harper and irrelevant to moderates. Another reason for accusing Harper of being an extremist is that he opposes anti-Semites. Again, I presume that moderates must support anti-Semites as part of their liberal attitudes towards terrorists, enemy agents, and the ill-used Khadr family. Lastly McQuaig accuses Harper of not supporting the Goldstone report. Imagine not supporting a report based on hearsay evidence from sources that have proven previously to lie to make their points. Moderates know that Hamas and Hezbollah have always told the truth about Jenin and Israel's other actions. Only extremists and Islamophobes would question the truth of anything that comes from the mouth of an Arab terrorist. Linda McQuaig has accused Harper of being an extremist when he has acted with due regard for the facts and the nature of the people he is dealing with. How have the words "Moderate" and extremist" become reversed by our left leaning intellectuals?

Goldstein and Major Hasan - National Post letters

Jacob Mendlovic criticisizes orthodox Judaism for having the prayers - Thank God for not having made me a Jew or a woman. This morning Moishe Goldstein wrote that we shouldn't worry about these prayers because the essence of real Judaism is to do unto others as you want others to do to you and love your neighbour as yourself. However we should worry if his interpretation of the objectives of Judaism is correct. The prayers about women and gentiles can be interpreted in a positive way, but mostly they will be interpreted as they are read, that is, negatively. Therefore, Goldstein's answer to Mendlovic should be that these prayers should not be said as they lead readers away from true Judaism. This is the same problem in Islam where prayers or the Koran lead people away from what Tarek Fatah would call "true Islam. If the object of religions is peace or a proper encounter with others and the devine, then prayers and passages of all religions that lead people away from these objectives must be eliminated. Passages in religious books that lead people in the wrong direction at best are ignored and at worst lead people to actions such as that taken by Major Hasan yesterday. It is harmful to our society to keep these passages as parts of our respective religions.

Note on op-ed about Ignatieff

Rodriquez, the Liberal party's Canadian Heritage Critic, wrote an op-ed in the National Post today, 05/11 on Ignatieff that included the sentence "He lived the life of an artist, with all the financial insecurity that comes with it." Ignatieff comes from a rich and famous family and lived the life of a well-paid Harvard professor. He never had to bear the financial insecurity of an artist. If this statement of Rodriquez is an example of the truth of the rest of the op-ed and of other Liberal writings, then they are not worth reading. He also says that the Liberal vision is "a cultured Canada." Does that mean that we will be like France where every "cultured" married man has a mistress and they are famous for caving in to and appeasing dictators?

Letter to the Toronto Star re Linda McQuaig

Linda McQuaig has an interesting argument in the Nov. 3 Star. She believes that Harper is an extremist because he supports the continued existence of a member of the United Nations - Israel. I presume that supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist organizations is therefore a moderate stance. Harper even objects to universities that hold meetings to publicize Israel's anti-apartheid policies. The fact that Israel is not an apartheid state, and gives its minorities more rights than any of its neighbours seems only relevant to extremists like Harper and irrelevant to moderates. Another reason for accusing Harper of being an extremist is that he opposes anti-Semites. Again, I presume that moderates must support anti-Semites as part of their liberal attitudes towards terrorists, enemy agents, and the ill-used Khadr family. Lastly McQuaig accuses Harper of not supporting the Goldstone report. Imagine not supporting a report based on hearsay evidence from sources that have proven previously to lie to make their points. Moderates know that Hamas and Hezbollah have always told the truth about Jenin and Israel's other actions. Only extremists and Islamophobes would question the truth of anything that comes from the mouth of an Arab terrorist. Linda McQuaig has accused Harper of being an extremist when he has acted with due regard for the facts and the nature of the people he is dealing with. How has the words "Moderate" and extremist" become reversed by our left leaning intellectuals?

My letter published in National - Nov 3rd

Just who do we thank for this?
When I read that the National Post is continuing to publish, as a Jewish reader and letter writer, my first thought was “Thank God”. Op-ed contributor Tarek Fatah would have said, “Praise Allah”. Father Raymond de Souza would have thanked Jesus, as the Father always works through an intermediary, and he knows that Jesus is definitely the one to thank. Most of your “ faithful” readers would say “Thank heaven” or Thank God”. Your secular readers would say “Thank goodness” and Hitchens would say “Thank me” because he knows that there is definitely no one or nothing else to thank.

Praise on the National Post continuing

When I read that the National Post is continuing to publish, as a Jewish reader and letter writer, my first thought was “Thank God”. Op-ed writer Tarek Fatah would have said, “Praise Allah”. This dichotomy might seem strange, but although Allah and God are brothers, they don’t get along very well. Michael Coren would have thanked Jesus, as Coren always works through an intermediary, and he knows that Jesus is absolutely, positively, and definitely the one to thank. Most of their “ faithful” readers would say “Thank heaven” or Thank God”. Their secular readers would say “Thank goodness”, and Hitchens would say “Thank me” because he knows that there is absolutely, positively, and definitely no one or nothing else to thank.

Barbara Amiel on Jews in the Nov 2nd Maclean's

Barbara Amiel asks why Jews keep voting against themselves. It is a good question but she fails to distinguish between U.S. Jews and Canadian Jews or properly answer her own question. One major difference between Canadian Jews and U.S. Jews is that Canadian Jews are mostly conservative, which means they stick more to tradition and their saving the world is done in a conservative, one small step at a time, manner, whereas U.S. Jews tend to be more reform, on the left, and seeking Tikkun Olum, improving the world, in a larger context which leads them from properly seeing the excellence of our democratic system, the evil of other systems, and that large changes bring large disruptions. Unfortunately the price of major change is always too high in that the new world is always preceded by destruction of the old, as happened under Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Sandinistas.

U.S. Jews usually vote for the Democratic Party and around 75% voted for Obama. They voted for change and a brave new world. As stated above, this is not uncommon with both the Jewish and non-Jewish left. They desire a new world where everyone is happy. This intense liberal voting pattern is not being followed by Canadian Jews. This difference can easily be seen in the votes of three of our largest Jewish Greater Toronto Jewish Ridings. York Centre elected a Conservative M.P., and Thornhill and Eglinton-lawrence came very close to electing Conservative M.P.’s. This trend towards the Conservatives is mirrored in many immigrant communities, and for Jews is helped by the fact that the Harper’s Conservative government has been enormously supportive of the state of Israel or at least it aggressive acts in the United Nations against the continual demonization of Israel; whereas the Liberal government, before it, usually abstained from voting with Israel on such matters. In addition Conservative Jews still remember that Liberal policy on Jewish immigration at the beginning of WW2 was “none is too many”.

Barbara Amiel also assumes that Jews vote against their own interests and don’t know their own interests. The truth is that Jewish history is a series of hundreds of years of living in and identifying with various countries, being a small oppressed minority population within them, and then being evicted from them. This is certainly a cause for insecurity and constantly seeking change to provide the impossible complete security.
However with anti-Semitism being a constant reminder, even if it is minimal, Jews constantly remain as somewhat outsiders and thus mentally associate with other outsiders. Jews also have a tradition of supporting the poor. The important feast of Passover, annually encourages Jews to remember that “they were once slaves in Egypt”, and so they do by psychologically and financially supporting and the poor. These factors help explain why Jews have in the past voted for the Liberal and Democratic parties. However as Barbara Amiel states, many Jews, especially those who favour the left, have not realigned themselves with the realities of Canadian politics where the true supporters of the poor and the status quo which is excellent by any standards, are the Conservatives, not the Liberals.

Barbara Amiel is right. Jews, especially liberal Jews, must re-evaluate their situation, and vote for what is both in their interests and the interests of most Canadians.

Letter to National Post re Tarek Fatah

I respect both Nanerjee and Weinstein for their public protests against Islamism and on behalf of Canadian values and system of government.
However as I have participated in some of their protests, I know that there are usually only about 25 people protesting. There are some 100,000 Jews and some 500,000 Indians in Greater Toronto. That means that Tarek is correct. Neither the Muslim, nor the Jewish, nor the Christian communities are seriously and publically protesting Islamism coming to our country. It is true that the Canadian Jewish Congress, an organization that does represent most Canadian Jews, does work quietly against Islamism , but it is done very quietly so that no one knows if they are really doing anything constructive or what they are doing. Tarek also criticizes aspects of his own religion, saying publically that certain customs and practices of Islam are harmful. Certainly Mr. Coren would never do this in speaking about Catholicism and I have seldom seen it done in Judaism. Lastly Tarek is subject to more hate and threats of danger, than non-Muslims might be subject to. I certainly don't agree with everything that Tarek says, but in my book he gets three stars - 1. For publically notifying our community about the realities of Islamism, 2. For criticizing aspects of his own religion that he feels are not beneficial to it or to us, and 3. For having the courage to speak out. Tarek should be honoured for the good work that he does, not denigrated because we don't agree with all his opinions, or because he does not do more.

Addition to Mark Steyn's article in Macleans - Oct 5th

Mark Steyn’s rant in the Oct.5th issue of MacLean’s left out how a normal, not-paranoid, 3rd generation Canadian would react if he were excluded from an inn because of allergies
or other health problems. I am unfortunately such a very average Canadian and I too have had problems with inns and my allergies to cats. Usually I ask the innkeeper whether he has cats. If the answer is yes, then after considering suing the innkeeper because my Constitutional rights to stay at that particular inn has been breached, and throwing a tantrum about racial, religion, or social prejudices, I just book at the next inn on my list. I figure that his loss of income is probably enough punishment for owning cats. In fact owning cats is probably enough punishment for owning cats. In any case, I probably have better things to do with my time than becoming a radical activist on behalf of the Constitutional rights of people with cat allergies, making one innkeeper’s life miserable by dragging him through the HRC system, and adding rather needlessly to the Ontario deficit.

The innkeeper didn’t own cats at the last bed and breakfast that I stayed at so I guess she didn’t intend to deprive me of my constitutional rights. She did however usually have
bacon for breakfast. I could have waited till she served it and then thrown up and sued her for damages or taken her before the HRC, but instead I asked her not to serve it to me. She agreed. However she served it to the person sitting beside me. What an insult! Surely she should understand that not only should she not serve bacon to me, but she shouldn’t serve it to anyone nearby, in the inn or on her street. Again I thought about my right not to have bacon in my vicinity, and that it would be an insult to my religion, and offend me personally, but decided not to peruse the matter. One of the reasons I decided against my almost uncontrollable call for revenge for this alleged offence was that the inconsiderate person sitting next to me eating bacon was my brother with whom I get along very well. Although it annoys me to see him eating bacon, I also know that I annoy
him with my chauvinistic eating habits. So, it is not worth even mentioning and our late mother would hate to see me sue him. So there you have it. I, an average Canadian, just don’t seem to be able to bring anyone before the HRC over such serious curtailments of my Constitutional rights.

Islamic extremists and female bodies -Somalia

It seems to me that if Islamic extremists prohit the use of women's bras to ensure that their breasts jiggle naturally, they should likewise prohibit men's underwear to ensure that their private parts also jiggle naturally. Jiggling of male private parts should be compulsory and any male found to have an erection in public should be subject to the severest penalties and cut off from the rest of society.

The headline on page A16 of the National Post is, "Muslim killed out of "pure hatred". To balance this headline, perhaps we should have more headlines which say "Muslims' kill out of pure hatred." There would be many more headlines expressing that reality, than that Muslims are killed by pure hatred, except of course in the many, many instances when Muslims are killed by other Muslims out of pure hatred.

Coren's defence in the National Post

Also in the National Post Michael Coren defends his view of the Catholic Church. His defence belongs with the defence of Stalinism, Mao, and the Sandanistas, not that Catholicism is like them, but because it is, like the above, a defence of an ideology with the defence lacking any substance, reason, logic or understanding.

Hitchens on page A21 of the National Post

Mr. Hitchens, and I use the term "Mr." loosely, describes Israel and perhaps the West Bank as a mad attempt by messianic Jews to steal the land of other people. Here he is stealing the ideas of death-worshipping, hate-filled Palestinians and their ideological cousins the Islamists. Hitchens should keep his discussions to religion where he can't yet be proven to be wrong.

Obama and Fox News

Criticizing Fox News is Obama's first step in his desire to rid America of free speech and to rid himself of critics. This is the Russian, Chinese and Saudi outlook which Obama has been praising. Obama is not only appeasing world dictatorships, he is following them.

Letter to National Post - Oxt 26th - Soupcoff

Playing favourites or playing stupid

Marni Soupcoff is playing the equivalency game this morning. The usual game says that Israel must use an equivalent amount of force in defending itself from the rockets of Hamas or Hesbullah. For some reason this theory has not been applied to other nations except in restricting the use of nuclear weapons on an enemy. Now Marni has brought this false concept to our streets and law courts. Why shouldn’t a shopkeeper like Mr. Chen be able to defend himself, not only within his business premises, but outside them as well? Why shouldn't he be able to protect himself and nearby shopkeepers from repeated thefts? This is the action of a man taking a responsible and courageous action on behalf of himself and his community. What message are we sending when we say he should be punished for acting as a concerned citizen? Marni is correct in that what he did was against the letter of the law. However the law also says that the police should protect our citizens – but in this case they have not done so. The law is also supposed to be exercised with intelligence and discretion, so as not to look foolish and out of touch with reality - but in this case they have not done so. People continually speak of other rights, but isn't the right to protect oneself a fundamental right? Surely there is a right to reasonably defend yourself and your neighbours when the police can do nothing.

Burke said that evil exists when good men do nothing. Chen acted to defeat evil. Marni’s adherence to the letter of the law would have evil be triumphant.

Glazov's United in Hate. The Left's ...

I've just begun reading Jamie Glazov's United in Hate, the Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. So far it's awesome. He asks, why did and does the Left ally itself with totalitarian and death -worshipping forces. It's a good question. He suggests that the left supports tyranny as they don't feel part of the current society, and thus need a whole new society in which they can be integrated. He makes a far better case for it then I do in his first 20 pages. Michelle and Barak Obama seem to me to be perfect examples. Although both were very successful, both saw the United States in a negative light and want to redo it so they fit in.

Letter to National Post internet edition - Oct 19th

The World Pride Parade - Oh goodie. We beat out Stockholm to host a bunch of sexual exhibitionists intent on parading their private parts and depravity in public. With that will come a human-rights conference - which is UN and Durban speak for an opportunity to bash Israel in public spaces.
I have nothing against support for Gays, but the Parade has become an exhibit of sexual, moral and political corruption. It is no longer Gay Pride but just Pride. It is pride in ignorance and excessiveness. The City, Province and Federal governments should not support this moral decay.

Letter to internet edition of the National Post - Oct 19th

I certainly hope that the Pakistani army has used proportionate force against the Taliban. It seems they have displaced 135,000 civilians whereas the Taliban have killed less than 100 Pakistanis - an insignificant number, just pinpricks, and these were by error to oppose the influence of America's colonialism. In addition if the Pakistani army has killed any civilians it should be investigated by Judge Goldstone and any wrongdoing brought before the international court of the Hague.

Letter to the National Post - internet edition Oct 17th re bras

Re: Islamists in Somalia whip women for wearing bras - page A25

If it weren't so perverse, it would make a good joke - perhaps a movie by Woody Allen. It indicates a systemic problem with Islam that cannot be erased by separating moderate Islam from hardline Islam or by repeating that Islam is a religion of peace and happiness. Sharia law, a law that in its extreme form permits the cutting off of arms and legs and the whipping of women for wearing bras is something that we definitely do not want in Canada, and anyone supporting the imposition of sharia law in Canada should be considered to be a danger to the rights and values that are the essence of Canadian society. To connect the dots, that is one reason to oppose the wearing of the burqa in Canada, as it indicates support of Sharia law.

Letter to National Post -internet edition - UN HRC

Let's see. The UN Human rights Council is made up mostly of human rights abusers. They appoint Judge Gladstone who is known to be anti-Israel to be the chief investigator into the Gaza war. Instead of a fact finding mission, he draws conclusions against Israel and a limited amount against Gaza. His conclusions are based on unverified evidence given by Palestinians who have previously lied in relation to incidents in Jenin and Lebanon, and in the Al Dura case. The UN Human Rights Council ignores the accusations against Gaza and accuses Israel of war crimes. Does this sound fair or am I being paranoid?

Letter to National Post - Online -Oct 16th

Wkipedia defines war crimes as follows
War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"
Nurenberg principle – planing, preparing, initiating or aging a war of aggression.
It also refers to the definitions in the Geneva and Hague Conventions There are obviously many definitions. Israel does not fit into any of them except perhaps the ill-treatment of civilians but the definition doesn't deal with the case of a war where civilians are being used as shields and participants by their own combatants.
However under the Nurenberg prnciples the leaders of Hamas, Fatah, and people like Ahmadinejad are clearly guilty of war crimes for "preparing and planning" war. These are the important war crimes criminals. They are the ones that should be tried at the Hague.
Lastly there must be a distinction between those that are defending themselves from a war started by others and those that commenced the war. The bar on what is a war crime should be much lower for the defender of a nation than for the aggressive attacking nation.

National Post - Oct 14th - response to Coren

Yes, my opinion is that Catholicism is flawed. That doesn't mean, as Coren suggests, that I am anti-Catholic. It means that I believe that one of its rituals is harmful to its priests, parishoners and untimately therefore to society. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with honest criticism of a religion by outsiders - as Coren does to Protestanism in his defence of Catholicism. Political correctness has gone too far. If a religion is valuable it should be able to withstand honest criticism of its practices and procedures as well as its doctrines. At least in the western world, criticism leads to improvements, and not to hatred and violence.

Letter to Globe - Oct 13th - re editorial

Pretty Michaelle Jean

Let's not criticize pretty Michaelle Jean. Her position is mostly ceremonial. She was appointed because she belongs to a racial minority, and is charming and clever and liberal. She never professed to know political procedures, nor apparently was it a job requirement when she was hired. Constitutional errors will occur when the GG is hired on the basis of excellence in charm and her ability to promote a certain image of Canada. Live with it.

National Post - Oct 12th - two brief comments

Today's editorial states that the French Cultural Minister says that if the cultural world does not support Polanski there would be no French culture. He confuses culture and immorality. Unfortunatley it seems that French values have so disintegrated that they are the same. Immorality is not a Canadian value.
On another value note there is now a coalition (A8) objecting to insurance companies refusing life and long term disability insurance without medical testing to someone who has Huntington's disease in the family. More moral confusion. The insurance companies are there to make money, not to provide a health service. Insuring those with certain diseases at regular rates will raise costs for the rest of us and potentially bankrupt the insurance company.Although I am sorry for people with hereditary diseases, the options are to save more or change government policy - not try to make insurance companies look after their unfortunate but extraordinary needs. Refusing coverage at standard rates is not discrimination as claimed, but only reasonable business practice.

Letter to National Post - Oct 11/09 - Conrad Black

Jew or Christian

From a Jewish viewpoint, I don’t think that Conrad Black is correct when he says that a person can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. A Christian believes that Jesus was physically as well as spiritually the son of God. This is impossible for a Jew to do. For a Jew, Jesus or Christ could be an extremely spiritual person, or a prophet, or the son of God, the way all of us are the children of God, or currently be a ghost or an angel, but not literally the son of God. Jesus therefore would have been Jewish if he did not believe he was the son of God, but Christian if he believed he was the son of God. Specific differences between the two religions in culture, moral values and rituals are insignificant. They say that when the Messiah comes, we will either be all Jews or all Christians depending on whether his opening remarks are “It’s good to see you” or “It’s good to see you again.”. Until that final time, we should tolerate each other’s guesses.

Peace Prize

I think Harper should get the peace prize for objecting to Durban 2, refusing to listen to Ahmadinejad in the UN , refusing to pass unfair resolutions against Israel, objecting to China's human rights violations, protecting our northern borders by negotiations and reasonable actions, having troops in Afghanistan, and quietly acting against terrorism in Canada

Comment - Oct 9th, 09

Read - Prisoner of Tehran, a Memoir, by Marina Nemat. It is excellent and tells us what awaits us if Islamism comes to Canada.

Obama's peace prize is for being the best appeaser. Arafat's peace prize was for the best at talking peace while training for war. Ahmadinejad should get a peace prize for trying to obtain peace by taking over the whole world, and of course... Norway should get a peace prize for best boycotter of Israeli goods and foremost hypocrite about peace.

Our immigration policy's point system -
One point for being a refugee and avoiding normal immigration policy
One point for not being white.
One point for being anti-establishment
One point for being gay.
One point for believing that Canadians are all immigrants
and that they have no political, cultural, or social history
One point for believing that Canadians have no political, cultural
or social or religious values

National Post - Oct 8th

Congratulations to the Muslim Canadian Congress for suggesting that the burka should be banned. They have no place in Canada and should have no place anywhere else. Congratulations also to Salim Mansur who again speaks our against Islamism within the Islamic faith. We need Muslims and non-Muslims to speak our against religious practices which are harmful to those that practice them and to their societies.

National Pot - Oct 8th - Patterns in religions and Politcal Appointments

This morning’s National Post shows patterns of thought and patterns of behavior. We appointed a lovely left wing G.G. who apparently neither knows nor particularly cares that she is not the head of state, but is the Queen’s representative in Canada. By appointing Michaelle Jean, we have used the position of Governor-General to demonstrate that we are left-wing, multicultural, modern, clever, and sophisticated. . Michaelle Jean represents Canada well socially, but not in her required political functions. Similarly but much worse is the appointment of Dionne Brand as Toronto’s official poet laureate. She too proves that we are multicultural, modern, clever and sophisticated. Unfortunately she also comes with the baggage of being bigoted against whites, our society, and of course, being politically correct, against Israel. Brand doesn’t represent the majority of Canadians at all. It is time for representatives who truly understand and will or can perform all their functions. It is not enough to have representatives who just “look good”.

Different patterns emerge with religion. Father De Souza defends the status quo on celibate priests, although the problem is obviously systemic and needs to be changed to avoid further priestly perversions. It is not good enough to claim anguish and to blame the problem on the weakness of man and a few wayward leaders. As the politically correct people say, we must get to the root of the problem, and change it. Similarly Salim Mansur regrets all the violence and bigotry in Islam and says there are two Islams and
Muslims must take the less violent one. However although he recognizes that violent
Islam has dominated Islam during all of his existence, he doesn’t recognize that this is a systemic problem with Islam and that violence will continue unless the system itself is radically changed so that by Islam’s nature, violence will no longer arise.

Dysfunctional patterns call for radical changes, not quilt work changes with apologies and guilt. Political appointments must be made with serious regard to the functions that are to be performed. Religions, which are supposed to improve mankind, must change themselves when their adherents realize that something in them is leading to evil, instead of benefits to mankind. Patterns must be changed. Band-aid solutions do not suffice.

The Globe - Oct 7th p.A14

This morning's Globe has an article showing Israel soldiers in Jerusalem and saying they make Palestinians nervous. Imagine the gall of Israel to have Israeli soldiers patrolling their country! Of course it makes Arabs nervous as many are traitors and support either Fatah in the West Bank or Hamas in Gaza, both of which want to destroy Israel. The Arabs also claim they fear for the safety of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Israel has not destroyed Muslim relics. The fear comes from the actions of the Arabs themselves who have in the past and continue to destroy Jewish relics and religious sites at every opportunity. Shame on the Globe for wasting a full half page on these propagandizing nervous nellies.

Liberal and Conservative stands on immigration

According to today's National Post, Liberals, Bob Rae, Joe Volpe and Dan McTeague wish the government to apologize to Suaad Mohamud and give her $2.6 million for trying to fiddle the government with her passport, while Kenney is trying to amend our immigration laws. Hmmm. I wonder which party I should support.

Does this make sense?

The good -

(1) according to Protestanism - success plus a minor for service (2) according to Judaism - intelligence plus a minor for personal integrity, (3) according to Islam - Jihad (defence of or aggression for Islam) plus a minor for personal jihad (personal struggle)

Does it explain the different focuses of the various religions?

Gilad exchange for video

If Israel will exchange 20 prisoners for a mere video, Hamas must be asking themselves how many prisoners they can get for a dead body. Are Israeli politicians that stupid to exchange prisoners for a useless video? Even if Gilad is alive today there is no guarantee that he will be alive tomorrow. The exchange should be Gilad for prisoners or Gilad for the targetted killing of a Hamas official. Gilad for a video is just a measure of the gullibilty of the Israelis.

Comment on Suuad Mohammad

It was suggested in the National Post this morning that Suaad Mohamud's sister first presented herself with Suaad's passport and that it was the sister who couldn't answer the questions. It seems reasonable to me. The pictures on the passport are similar but the sister probably would look similar enough. When the sister got to Canada she could just mail the passport back to Suaad. It sounds like a scam that didn't work to me. And now she wants to sue the Canadian government? Talk about Chutspah! (outrageous nerve)

letter re not acting in 1944

Although I usually only post my own letters, this is worthwhile

I took the following from Mike Diamond's letter. Basically it says that Jews, and surely it applies to non-Jews as well, should raise up their voices against the likes of Iran, send in letters, vote responsibly etc etc. It is better to be informed and act now than wait until its too late. I don't agree with all of it, especially with the two state solution, as I believe the West Bank should either belong to Israel or be divided between Israel and Jordan - as Jordan is really a Palestinian state.

The following is the text of a lecture delivered by Aryeh Rubin at the Wyman Institute’s national conference, “The Failure to Bomb Auschwitz: History, Politics, Controversy,” held on September 13, 2009 at Fordham University School of Law. Mr. Rubin also chaired the conference. Mr. Rubin’s lecture, “Lessons to Learn from 1944,” focuses on the shortcomings of Jewish leadership during the Holocaust and continuing through the present, the threat posed to Israel by Iran, the complicity of European nations who are providing parts for Iran’s nuclear program, and the position taken by world Jewry today. The text of the lecture is followed by Mr. Rubin’s bio. Text from the lecture may be reproduced in whole or in part only if taken in context, with proper credit given, and with a link to the pdf of the full text on the Targum Shlishi website at www.targumshlishi.org. Please note that there are slight variations between the written text and the spoken lecture. Comments may be sent to info@targumshlishi.org.

Lessons to Learn from 1944 By Aryeh Rubin I’d like to thank the Wyman Institute’s Professor David Wyman and Dr. Rafael Medoff for organizing this important conference. Before I begin speaking on the topic of “Lessons to Learn from 1944,” I’d like to make it clear that this talk represents my point of view, and not that of the Wyman Institute, its staff, or its board members.
Introduction In recent years, when speaking on Holocaust-related issues, I have often said the following: I believe that if a Holocaust victim could rise up from one of the mass graves for ten minutes and speak, he would ask three questions: One, Why didn't the Jews of the world move heaven and earth to stop the massacre? Two, Why was so little done to bring the Nazis to justice after the Holocaust? Three, Why didn't we as Jews have the self-respect as a people to find the mass graves, to discover where and how the Jews were killed and to say Kaddish?
Today, I am adding a fourth question: Is American Jewry, in its misguided complacency, repeating the same mistakes it made prior to and during the Holocaust? A few hours ago, I asked you what actions you would take if you could travel back to 1939 armed with today’s knowledge. Today, we can look back at that time, just before the Holocaust devastated the Jews, and we can see how things could have been done differently to avert the Shoah. There is one area I would like to focus on: American Jews could have spoken up, rocked the boat, made themselves heard by the country’s leaders, and not relented until action was taken. The fact that the masses in large part remained silent had horrific consequences. American Jews during World War II were not without power and resources – they could have made a lot more noise. At the very least, they could have pushed for one bombing run on the tracks to Auschwitz. But they didn’t. Today, American Jews are more powerful than we were in 1939 and arguably more powerful than at any time in the past two thousand years. We are powerful because the Jews of the Diaspora have a voice in the United States and Europe, and we are powerful because of Israel’s military strength. And yet, today we are facing enormous threats to Israel that are every bit as serious and in some ways more frightening than in 1939, with the potential for devastating consequences. One nuclear device can do the unthinkable in an instant. Israel’s very existence could be at stake if Iran attains a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, as I’ll argue in this talk, I don’t believe we’ve learned our lessons from 1944. The threat from Iran, its satellites, Al-Qaeda, and the Arab world is real; the militant Arab leaders are making their intentions clear, and there is no doubt that they mean what they say. If we do not take responsibility to stop it, the consequences could be horrific for Israel, by extension for the Jewish people, and ultimately for the entire Western world. We need to do everything in our power to raise the alarm. We need to speak up, to agitate, to make the world take notice. At the same time, we must respect Israel’s autonomy, its right to steer its own course and make its own decisions.
I believe that American Jewry is in danger of repeating mistakes of seventy years ago in the way it is responding, or rather not responding, to the current American administration’s position – and I feel this despite the hopeful sign of this past Thursday’s coordinated effort of hundreds of Jewish leaders and activists going to Washington to urge the Obama administration and Congress to take action on Iran.
The United States is the only power broker of consequence, and in a major change of direction, this administration is putting unusual and unwarranted public pressure on Israel. American Jewry’s attachment to pacifism is often admirable, but currently is not in Israel’s best interest. There are many critical lessons to be learned from World War II. One is that sometimes it takes war to end evil, as it did with Hitler. The lack of visible action to date vis-à-vis the Iranian threat – as a community and as individuals – suggests that we have not yet integrated these lessons. Personal background Lest you think I’m a right-wing Republican, I’d like to briefly discuss my own background. I have solid credentials on the left. During Oslo I was a member of the Israeli Policy Forum, which was set up at the request of Rabin and Peres to promote the peace process with the Palestinians. I’ve met with the Palestinian Authority leadership including Arafat. But after the intifada began, and the lynching in Ramallah took place in 2001, I began to wonder if perhaps too many of us were too quick to assume that a new, peaceful Middle East had dawned. I came to believe that the IPF, along with a number of other Jewish organizations on the left, were not protecting Israel as they should. I withdrew from the IPF and took the left to task in an op ed piece in the Jewish Week entitled “The Left is No Longer Right.” I am among those who believe that Oslo, while a failure, was not a mistake. And I further believe that we continue the process until the Palestinians are ready to deal in earnest. I support the two state solution as recently proposed by Prime Minister Netanyahu. I support programs that help Israeli Arabs, Druze, and Berber populations in Israel and in Djerba, Tunisia. I would have been thrilled if today we could have celebrated the sixteenth anniversary of the famous handshake between Arafat and Rabin on the White House lawn that took place on this date, September 13, in 1993. Unfortunately, we have nothing to celebrate, not today, not yet.
The Iranian threat Today we have cause for fear. A nuclear Iran is looming on the world’s horizon. Iran has made no secret of its intent, which is to exterminate Israel. Because of its size, Israel could be obliterated with one bomb, which means it could be imperative that Israel attack preemptively. I believe that when Ahmadinejad declares that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” he is declaring his intention, just as Hitler made his intention clear in Mein Kampf in 1925. When Hitler declared that his aim was to destroy the Jews, he meant it. He spelled out his intention. And nobody listened. When Hezbollah’s Nasrallah says that it’s good that Jews are gathered in one place, in Israel, because, “it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide,” he means it. When Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, on Iranian television in 2000: “Iran’s position...is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region,” he meant it. In a significant respect, our enemies today are potentially more dangerous than our enemies of yesterday. The Nazis wanted to live, to enjoy food and music and art in their Judenrein and Aryan wonderland. The radical Muslims, our enemies today, are not interested in life. They are suicide bombers, willing to sacrifice large numbers of people. That means that the military strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD), so effective during the Cold War with the Soviets, may not hold with a Muslim nuclear power. In fact, Iran’s former president Rafsanjani said in 2007 that it would be OK to lose an estimated fifteen million Iranians in response to the nuclear destruction of Israel that would kill five million Jews. That, he said, would be a small “sacrifice” from among the more than one billion Muslims in the world. And Rafsanjani is considered by the West to be a moderate.
Many strategic experts believe that if Iran gets the bomb, it or its surrogates will use it to attack Israel. Any destruction undertaken today will occur at warp speed in comparison to the Holocaust. We have very little time left to act. We certainly don’t have the leisure to take a wait and see approach.
The lesson learned from World War II is that waiting is not the answer. Imagine how many lives would have been spared, how much sooner World War II would have ended, if the United States had gone to war against Hitler in 1939, instead of waiting two years and two months until Pearl Harbor. As it was, fifty million were killed (some say the number is as high as seventy-five million). Countless Jews and tens of millions of gentile civilians would have been saved if the United States entered the war at the outset. But instead, the isolationists in both parties held sway, much as they are today.
Europe and the United States One of the most important questions to consider in the event of a crisis facing Israel is whether the free world will stand with Israel today, or whether it will abandon the Jews as it did seventy years ago.
Can Israel count on the Europeans? I have my doubts. Despite friendly heads of state with Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy, and Merkel in Germany, their policies tilt toward the Arabs. Their sales of weapons to Arab and Muslim regimes that are hostile to Israel speaks for itself. Historically anti-Semitic, the European masses are largely anti-Israel and I believe there is a very thin line – probably no line at all – between today’s anti-Israel sentiment and yesterday’s anti-Semitism. Europe’s rising Muslim population and its complete dependence on Arab oil indicates that these European countries will not play any meaningful or constructive role regarding the Iranian threat to Israel. In all of this, the United States is a key player. It may be too early to tell, but our current administration seems to be changing the rules of the game. I am concerned about the one-sided criticism of Israel, the constant pressure for more Israeli concessions without any signs of concessions from the other side.Given the situation, it is clear that we must be proactive in making sure that the administration understands what Israel may have to do and that any action Israel takes to defend itself upholds the interests of the United States and the Western world, as well. We must not be silenced in deference to an administration that is reluctant to get involved. We must not repeat the mistakes of the 1930s and ’40s.
American Jewry’s commitment to liberalism World War II taught us that there are times when it is necessary to fight back. As so eloquently pointed out in the current issue of Commentary, in a piece on Jews and liberalism, the Jewish people have historically found intellectual sustenance and a modicum of physical security from those expressing universalist ideas. And those universalist ideas were most often part of the ideology of the left. As such, the majority of the Jews, and I count myself among them, have remained loyal to the platforms of the left. This despite the fact that the evolution of the American right has become more philo-Semitic and more pro-Israel. And the hawks and evangelicals among them are the most fervent and committed supporters of the State of Israel. From the perspective of our own survival, we should gravitate towards those who wish us well and support our standing in the world. Let me make my position clear. An attack on Israel is effectively an attack on the Jewish people. When they’re coming to chop our heads off, the items that Jews care about as a matter of political heritage and tikkun olam – issues such as women’s rights, reproductive rights, universal health care, separation of church and state, education, diversity, the arts, and all other agendas must come second. The sanctity and security of the well-being of the State of Israel and the well-being of its citizens are what count and are of paramount importance.
Despite the pacifist attitude held by many children of Holocaust survivors, despite the anti-war rhetoric spouted by many of the 1960s Jewish baby boomers, despite what for many of us is an innate leftist opposition to war, ultimately it is only the strength of the State of Israel that make our enemies respect us. It is not our intellect, not our Nobel prizes, not our supposed financial acumen. As the Italian-Jewish intellectual Alain Elkann has put it so well, the only antidote to Auschwitz is Israel – and its military might. As such, Israel is fighting not only for itself, but for all Jews – and I would argue that by extension it is fighting for the well-being of the Western world and its values.
The United States is the greatest country in history, and many would argue that Jews in the United States are living in a Golden Age, perhaps in the best time to be Jewish in history, that we have little to be worried about. I would argue that there have been other Golden Ages in Jewish history. Jews flourished in Germany until the late eleventh century, medieval Spain was a wonderful home for Jews, sixteenth century Poland was called a “paradise for the Jews,” Jews in France after Napoleon and before Dreyfus experienced growth and prosperity that could be considered a golden era, and of course, Jews in pre-Hitler Germany were integrated into society and felt very German. There’s a lesson here – golden ages have no protection to offer. And yet, time and again throughout history, the Jewish community and its leaders have had false confidence in golden ages.
Jewish leadership during World War II Looking back, the failure of American Jewish leadership during World War II is no doubt due in part to a desire to hold onto the relatively newfound security of living in America, a safe haven and an ocean away from the turmoil of Europe. Rabbi Stephen Wise, a reform rabbi, a founder and leader of major Jewish organizations, a man who had access to the White House, a friend of Roosevelt, blocked the Bergson group’s attempts to meet with Roosevelt, despite the valiant work that this grassroots group was doing on behalf of Europe’s Jews. There were other groups trying to rescue Jews and they were also essentially silenced by America’s mainstream Jewish leadership. Wise, like many of the Jewish leaders of the era, did far less than he could have, and should have, to protest the killings. The motivation for his complacency? One can interpret his inaction in one of two ways. One is that he was concerned that any agitation would result in a backlash of anti-Semitism and that he believed that the best way to save world Jewry was to be quiet and let the United States win the war in its own way. The other interpretation of his silence is to surmise that he had a reluctance to rock the boat, that he did not wish to draw attention to himself or the larger Jewish community, that he had the Diaspora mentality of wanting to continue his life in the golden age without interference. I would argue that in some Jewish circles, with some minor differences, we are in a similar situation today.
In reading the book A Race Against Death by conference organizers David Wyman and Rafi Medoff, I was struck by a footnote detailing how even during times of crisis, Jewish leaders rigidly adhered to their comfortable schedules. They would interrupt accounts of genocide to go to lunch at their favourite restaurants. They would be unavailable for meetings on Friday afternoons because they headed off to their regular weekend outings to the country. While these leaders were having tea in the Rockaways, thousands of Jews were dying that afternoon in Europe. The Jews of Europe were being exterminated as American Jews were leading their comfortable, quiet lives. I’m not saying that there wasn’t insecurity on the part of Jews in America – ask any of the old timers about the insecurity about being a Jew in a pre-Israel universe – ask them how they felt when they heard the rantings of Father Coughlin or Joseph Kennedy’s support for Berlin, for example. Nevertheless, Jewish leadership failed us during the Holocaust and it’s failed us since.We had a rare success with Soviet Jewry and we should learn from that. Soviet Jewry movement But even with the success story of the Soviet Jewry movement, the establishment did not lead. They were dragged. The rabbinical leaders believed that keeping quiet was the best way. The Israeli leadership was preoccupied with its own survival. The Jewish organizations for whatever reasons did not undertake to stop the Soviets. It took a grassroots uprising catalysed by the Englishman Jacob Birnbaum and his group of ragtag students at Yeshiva and Columbia universities for the establishment to finally step up. When it did, the establishment was extremely effective – we witnessed the possibility of unified action, the potential of the Jewish community to influence the course of history. We need to do it again, and we need to do it now.
Today’s Jewish leadership What of today’s Jewish leadership? Has it learned from World War II? From the Soviet Jewry movement? We have Jews in the White House, Jews who have the President’s ear. How will they deal with today’s crises? Will they show courage, or will they be like the shtadlanim, the court Jews of old? Throughout history, we’ve had court Jews who did what they thought was best for the Jewish community. Today is no exception. Today’s agenda in the White House is being set by people who do care. They care so much that they believe they are the authorities on what is good for Israel and that they know better than Israel’s elected officials, who face down rabid enemies every waking moment of their lives. And this conviction of knowing what’s best for Israel is not limited to our leaders. There are plenty of American Jews who think they know what’s best for Israel. But while seventy-eight percent of American Jews voted for Obama and believed he felt strongly about Israel’s safety, a recent poll found that only four percent of Israeli Jews believe that Obama’s policies are pro-Israel. This disconnect between the perceptions of American Jews and Israeli Jews points to a disconnect between Jews on the front line and Jews in America.
Israel’s right to self-determination All signs are pointing to a near future in which Israel will face many difficult choices regarding Iran. As for the action Israel should take to defend itself, that is up to Israel. And shame on any of us outside of Israel, who are not faced with being blown up when we go out for a meal, who are not in the Army reserves, whose sons are not engaged in Gaza, and whose daughters are not on serving on the Lebanese border, to begin to think that we understand what it’s like to live in Israel. Many American Jews identify with Israel, feel strongly about Israel, and think they know what is best for Israel.Those of us sipping cappuccinos at Starbucks on the West Side of Manhattan, drinking cosmopolitans in Chicago, bicycling in the Bay Area, sunning ourselves in Miami, or praying in Borough Park are not qualified to impose our political will on Israel. Given that the last Israeli election resulted in a more right wing government than in the recent past and that Meretz, the avowed left wing party, received less than three percent of the vote, perhaps the Israelis know a bit more about the neighbourhood they live in than do the policy wonks in Washington. Israel has the right to make its own decisions. If Iran gets the bomb, it could be the end of the Zionist dream. Even if Iran doesn’t use the bomb, blowing up a small nuclear device as a test in the desert could result in the emigration of hundreds of thousands of Israelis. A recent poll found that twenty-three percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran got the bomb.
Grassroots activism in today’s Germany In April of this year I met in Berlin with several idealistic young Germans from an NGO called Stop the Bomb. They are working feverishly to stop Iran’s atomic program and are demanding unilateral economic and political sanctions against Iran. I liken them to members of the White Rose, those young German, non-Jewish college students who protested the Third Reich during World War II. Stop the Bomb is holding protest meetings and conferences, speaking at schools, generating petitions, and establishing websites. They are disseminating information, including the fact that Germany is providing Iran with a shockingly high percentage of the precision parts needed to produce the fuel for the bomb. Two-thirds of Iranian industry is dependent on German technology, and every third machine comes from Germany. And note that currently, more than 1500 German companies still do business with Tehran and the German government still gives state credit guarantees for export deals to Iran.11 Frankly, the members of Stop the Bomb aren’t being heard. For all their efforts, the precision parts keep getting delivered to Iran. And, I might add, Germany is considered Israel’s best friend in Europe.
Members of Stop the Bomb asked for my thoughts. I told them they should consider adopting the methodology used by other protest movements. I said that it takes action to be heard. I told them that they should interrupt commerce in Germany’s three major cities, Berlin, Munich, and Frankfurt. How? Rent 50 cars in each city, drive to traffic flash points during Tuesday morning rush hour, stop the cars, turn off the engines, and throw away the keys. Traffic would come to a standstill, business would grind to a halt, money would be lost, people would get angry, the media would pay attention, and, bottom line, they would be heard. Shut down those three cities and you’ll get the attention of the German people. I also suggested a second type of protest. I told them to go to a butcher’s shop and get bags of blood and stage a protest by throwing the blood onto members of a symbolic group, such as the musicians in a visiting Iranian orchestra or on the German legislators who refuse to put boycotts with teeth in place. The stakes are high. Petitions are not enough.
Do these measures make you queasy? Too graphic? Are they extreme? Illegal? Radical? Perhaps. But remember the question I asked earlier – what would you have done in 1939, armed with today’s knowledge? Given Germany’s record, I feel perfectly justified in recommending for consideration civil disobedience in Germany to get that country’s government to impose effective sanctions. Germany has a moral and ethical responsibility to stop the madness.
I am not suggesting a campaign of civil disobedience in the United States. At this point, we hope that President Obama will be successful, and if he isn’t that he will change direction quickly. For our part, though, I hope that we have learned our lesson from 1944 in this regard, which is that if the United States is not doing the right thing, and Israel is in danger, then we must protest, as our grandparents should have done in the 1930s and ’40s. If ever a situation called for civil disobedience, it was the United States’ abandonment of the Jews of Europe during the Shoah.12
Take away lessons So, what lessons can we learn from 1944? First, our survival as a people depends on a change of course. If we do things as we’ve done them in the past, the results will be the same. If we behave as we have in the past, during World War II and in many of our crises throughout history, we are in deep trouble. Second, the world should not appease tyrants. Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy was disastrous, yet the western world went along with him and gave in, thinking that by signing the Munich Agreement, by granting Germany the Sudetenland, Hitler would be appeased, and he would stop his aggression. Today the West is appeasing terrorist regimes. Stop. It won’t work. Third, Jewish leadership has failed us in the past. It is failing us now in Iran. The call to action, with few exceptions, has been feeble, and in a meeting at the White House this past August, the Jewish leadership, according to reports, was largely non-confrontational in pressing its issues with the President. We need to light a fire under our leaders. Fourth, presidents are not infallible. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a popular and revered president, took a stand on not bombing Auschwitz, on not providing havens for escape, on not letting the SS St. Louis dock and unload its passengers, he was wrong. The eventual result was that millions died. If President Obama, another popular president, pushes his own agenda in the Middle East, and we believe that it may be detrimental to our people, we have a duty as American citizens and as Jews to challenge him and his administration. In conclusion, for the Jewish people, Israel is our haven and to many of us, central to our beings as Jews. Yet Israel is also the canary in the coal mine – as goes Israel, so goes world Jewry and the values of the Western world. We must make Israel and the survival of the Jewish people the raison d’être of our political activity. Whether we agree with Israel’s politics or not, each of us has a personal stake in the outcome. We need to reach within ourselves to find the grit we had in 1948, not the complacency of 1939.
Let me close by repeating my initial question from this morning. If this was 1939 and you knew then what you know now, what would you do? Whatever your answer, keep it in mind. Let us hope and pray that we won’t have to implement your ideas. * * * Aryeh Rubin’s bio Aryeh Rubin is the founding partner and managing director of The Maot Group, an investment company established in 1991. Previously, he was the publisher of the New York–based KSF Group, a medical publishing company. In 1974, Mr. Rubin visited eleven concentration camps throughout Europe, an experience that helped influence his decision to found and publish Jewish Living magazine in the late 1970s. Mr. Rubin is also the founder and director of Targum Shlishi, a foundation dedicated to fostering positive change in the Jewish world. Targum Shlishi has undertaken several initiatives related to Holocaust knowledge, awareness, and justice, including: conceiving and funding Operation Last Chance through the Israel office of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a campaign that provides a cash award for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Nazi war criminals; spearheading a fundraising initiative for Father Patrick Desbois, a Catholic priest who is systematically locating mass graves of Jews massacred in Ukraine and Belarus and uncovering the history that occurred there; and sending out 1500 complimentary copies of David Wyman and Rafael Medoff’s book A Race Against Death: Peter Bergson, America, and the Holocaust to decision-makers in the Jewish world. Targum Shlishi’s recent grants awarded include support for video documentation of an archeological investigation of Sobibor, the concentration camp in Poland that was closed in 1943 after a successful revolt; Voices from the Ashes, a project to translate and publish very early Holocaust testimonies from a 14 previously unexplored archive at the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw; and a forthcoming documentary on the history of Nazi hunting by Jonathan Silvers. In addition, Mr. Rubin is the editor of Jewish Sages of Today (Devora Publishing and Targum Shlishi), forthcoming this October. His opinion pieces have appeared in The Jewish Week, The Jerusalem Report, and Moment Magazine and he has been profiled in articles in several publications, including The New York Times, The Miami Herald, The Daily Business Review, and The Jewish Star Times. His opinion piece “What Did You Do After the War, Dad?” appeared in The Jewish Week and has been downloaded multiple thousands of times. Mr. Rubin received a B.A. from Yeshiva University. He is married, has three daughters, and lives in Florida.

letter to the Toronto Sun

Re: Harroon Siddiqui's comment on Goldstone's UN report titled - "Israel keeps shooting the Messenger"

There are times to shoot the message, times to shoot the messenger, times to shoot the commentator, and times to shoot the paper the comments are written in. This time it should be all four. The message is faulty, the messenger and the commentatory can't see the woods for the trees, and the newspaper can't tell truth from fiction in reporting international news

op-ed sent to the National Post - re Progressives

Progressives at City Hall

With the future retirement of Mayor Miller there has been a lot of talk about “progressives” at city hall without any definition of who they are or what they stand for.
Is the word a catchy way to demonize everyone who is not a progressive? Is it a name to describe the chosen few who really know the truth of how to legislate the perfect Toronto society? There is smugness to the word progressive, a moral superiority and self-righteousness indicating that they are the only ones who have the vision of the perfect society and who know how to achieve it. In truth, I think it describes people who say they support objectives that are progressive like multiculturalism, good wages, housing, and food for all, equality and freedom for all and other liberal and enlightened ideologies. Of course everyone supports these things, but the progressives do so more vocally then others. There are three problems with their ideas and ideologies. Multiculturalism has proven to be a false God. It has allowed immigrants to stay in secluded pockets and to not assimilate with other Canadians. It recently has also encouraged new immigrants to keep their foreign cultures and to not adopt Canadian cultures and values. Certainly everyone should have good wages, good housing and good food. However there is a price to pay for this and often this burden is too much for Toronto householders, especially seniors. In addition there are limits to the amounts of money that the Federal and Provincial governments are willing and able to pour money into Toronto. Living within one’s budget is necessary and often determines minimum standards of wages and housing despite ideology. Workers and others do not need to be paid or housed in the same elite style as the mayor. Promoting unreasoned, unreasonable and unachievable goals is not admirable. It is better to take small steps to work towards realistically achievable solutions for the social beneficial of all Toronto residents.

Lastly I suspect that often those progressives at city hall are not really promoting liberty or wealth for all, but are promoting their own self-interest. Promoting “the good life” for everyone is admirable but impossible. We do our best. Those who pontificate are often using social welfare ideas as a platform for their own success. That is what the “progressives” are doing and that is why we should not elect another “progressive” to city hall.

Book review - God Is

I have just finished reading God is, My search for Faith in the Secular World, by David Richards. I recommend it. The review in the paper suggested that readers read one of his earlier books first. I read The Friends of Meager Fortune which I enjoyed but it was not necessary to read it. Richards talks a lot about the importance of faith. Some of it I didn't understand either because I just didn't understand it or because it was written from a Catholic perspective and I missed some background. I found the following points most interesting:

1."Tolstoy said there are three conditions for greatness: goodness, simplicity and truth."

2. " So any scientist who mocks faith has missed the most valuable precept of his creed. It is not only science but faith that science can work, which will keep us creating and discovering. ... When we do discover or invent, we will be inspired with, or by, a love of humanity." and " If a scientist did not have faith , then even the discoveries that came be accident wouldn't have happened."
3. "The choice is between faith and nothing"
4. Liberty is not the same as power. Here he deals with people like the Mayor Miller and "progressives" and suggests that they are not seeking
liberty for themselves or everyone, but power.

Well, Harper has led the world against Iran and shown the U.N. how it should behave, Canadian real estate is taking off, Ignatieff is making speeches in deserted soybean fields, and Obama is being snubbed by the Russians and called delusional by France. The world is as it should be. Have a good week-end all.

Letters to the Globe - Sept 24th

1. Abdelrazik asked my representative to be an immigrant, came to my country, took advantage of all Canadian rights and privileges, left Canada, is suspected of being a person that would destroy my society, and now under my laws wishes to sue me, throught my representatives, for 27million dollars. Sorry, but he is not the kind of person I want to reward with millions of dollars or whom I deem worthy of becoming my fellow citizen. I urge my representatives to tighten immigration requirements and to pass laws forbidding new Canadians from suing the government in such circumstances.

2. Surely Harper is acting in the Canadian way - taking positive action to tell Iran and the U.N. that their lies, deceits and unethical behaviour is not approved by Canada. It certainly makes me proud to be a Canadian.

National Post - Sept 23rd

Lots to comment on today. Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin says we should keep 9/11 in perspective in regard to terrorists and urges balance (whatever that is), but she misses the big picture that 9/11 is part of the Islamist desire and attempt to subdue the West by physical, political or social means.

Our Canadian government will walk out on Ahmedinejab's speech to the U.N.
Doesn't that call for a Jewish rally in the streets in support of that position?
Since we are in a pre-election mode it seems a great time and opportunity for the Conservatives to benefit from their moral stance and for the Jewish and evangelistic, and perhaps even the United Church, communities to show the Conservatives their appreciation and support of that stance.

Lorne Gunter points out a situation in Britain where a couple were charged with defaming Islam but the women they were arguing with was not charged with defaming Christianity. He suggests that the state should stay out of religious arguments. He is correct but at least they should not ignore the Chirstian sensibilities and only support the Muslims.

Obama keeps on talking about how he wants a Palestinian state to live side by side in peace with Israel. If he opened his eyes, he could see such a state. It is called Jordan and was part of Palestine until it had a name-change.

National Post - Sept 22

Judy Rebick should be judged on her own merits - not on her parents'. Because her parents were Jews doesn't mean she is not anti-Israel or anti-semitic - the same way that because Schwartzeneggers parents were nazis doesn't mean that he is anti-semitic. Rebick says " I hope that the pile-on of angry Jewish males will not stop her..." (Klein). Not only Jewish men but Jewish women and Christian men and women objected to Klein. From that statement it is obvious that Rebick is paranoid about and hates Jewish men, and since there are lots of Jewish men in Israel she feels the same way about Israel. If I were a psychologist I would wonder if her use of the term "pile-on" is sexual and that she is afraid that Jewish men will pile-on her. Rebick's op-ed is complete garbage and should not have been printed.

National Post Monday sept 21st

George Will wrote in the Natioanl Post this morning (Monday) that Bosnia is disintegrating despite all the money that has poured into that country and we should use it as a lesson for what will happen in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that the Bosnian fiasco as well as what is happening with Karsai in Afganistan are good examples of what will happen if the West Bank and/or Gaza becomes a country. It will not bring peace - only more war, destruction and perhaps the possession or use by another terrorist nation of nuclear weapons.

Letter to National Post Sept 17th 2009

1. Stopping Violence Against Women
Instead of Irwin Cotler’s pompous list of things to be done to protect women, the simple inclusion of women’s rights as part of human rights and the continuous publishing of anti-women laws and activities, in the same way that Israel’s activities are continually publicized, would be effective. For once let political correctness and charges of Islamophobia and racism be avoided and any group, whether white or black, Christian or Muslim be targeted as offenders against both human rights and women’s rights.

Families eating together.
Father de Souza is right about the blessings from a family sitting down to supper together. However instead of just extolling its virtues, why doesn’t Father de Souza simply point to the Jewish tradition of having family Friday night dinners together and suggest that Christians simply steal Jewish tradition and absorb it into Christianity? Wouldn’t it be good if religions could simply say that a tradition in another religion is excellent and decide to institute it as part of their own tradition? Surely such honesty and openness would be good for everyone.

3 It takes one to know one.

Carter has shown his anti-semitism by his unrelenting and extremely unrealistically and overblown criticisms of Israel. It indicates he is a bigot and a racist. Now he is accusing all Americans who disagree with Obama as being racists and bigots. It takes one to know one.

Letter to National Post Set 15th re benigh shariah law

Shariah finance is not as benign as it appears. It is true that you can stop the financing of terrorist organizations but you can't stop the financing of Islamists and those that teach Islamism. You also can't stop the funds being used to promote Islam and teach that "Islam is peace" while ignoring its problems. In addition most banks give to religious and secular organizations, not just to Christian organizations. To have the secular banks donating to secular, Christian and Muslim organizations and the shariah banks donating only to Muslim organizations gives Muslim organizations a decided advantage over Christian and other religious organizations.

Letter to the National Post - Sept 14th re religions

Religions are not equivalent

I see nothing wrong with Quebec's insistence that children be taught the world's religions. I do see a problem in teaching them that religions are all equivalent. It is like teaching children that an apple and an orange are equivalent. They are not. They are different. Religions have some similar and some different sets of rituals and values. If teaching children those differences give parents a problem, it could be that the attitudes of the parents need to be changed, not the school system. It is way past time to stop religious opinions, bigotry and myths from being sancrosanct.

Letter to The Star - sept 14th re TIFF

Mr. Knelman does indeed point out the faulty logic of the protestors of TIFF. That faulty logic is the result of years of illegitimate anti-Israeli propaganda which has been accepted and supported by the Star, York and Ryerson Universities, the United Nations, and many others over the past few years.

National Post - Saturday - sept 12th

It is interesting that Islam, Islamists and many Muslims accept or approve of cutting out women's clitorises, clothing them in a burqa that hides and negates both their bodies and their personalities, and then accuse Israel of human rights violations.

Below is Fulford's good article on Burqa's in the Saturday's National Post

In the 21st century, the Islamic burka, the fullface-and-body veil, adopted by more women every day, has become the most potent human symbol on earth. But what exactly does it symbolize? Many say it stands for piety. No, that’s wrong, says Marnia Lazreg, an Algerian-born professor of sociology at the City University of New York. Piety has little to do with it; the Koran doesn’t even mention the veil. In truth, the veil stands for political ideology and male power.
It also establishes the wearer’s extreme distance from the rest of us. We recognize people by seeing their faces and we acknowledge their humanity by reading what their faces tell us. Without that information humans cannot come alive to each other. A woman wearing a mask is a woman declining to be human. Unable to look anyone in the eyes, lacking peripheral vision, her hearing muffled, she becomes an abstraction. Encouraging a woman to wear the burka is like offering her a portable isolation cell.
In Europe the burka stirs public anger. President Nicolas Sarkozy says it’s unwelcome in France: “We cannot have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity.” Sarkozy understands that he speaks for much of the electorate. Could France actually ban the burka from its streets? That would infringe on individual rights but now begins to seem possible.
Lazreg’s fascinating book, Questioning the Veil: Open Letters to Muslim Women (Princeton University Press), tells us that the veil comes and goes, according to the rise and fall of ideologies and the change in male perceptions of women and women’s beliefs about themselves. Algeria illustrates the point. After women helped achieve independence from France in 1962, many ceased to wear the veil. It lost its political force as a form of rebellion and became an archaic custom of an older generation. Lazreg remembers her mother discarding it.
The revival of the veil among Algerians in recent years coincides with economic failure, a regional cultural identity movement and the war between Islamists and the Algerian government. Today’s Islamists often coerce women to wear the veil. (Surprisingly, Lazreg doesn’t mention the physical harm involved: Women who hide every inch of their skin from the sun often suffer from a Vitamin D deficiency and develop early osteoporosis, a syndrome noted by doctors in several countries.)
Lazreg grew up in a Muslim home but she reacts to a burka-wearing woman on the street in the same spirit as someone in the West: It always startles her and she always wonders whether the woman has obeyed her husband or decided on her own to take up the veil. She was shocked when she entered a shop in Damascus and saw two black forms sitting near the counter, their faces entirely covered in black, with no opening even for the eyes. “I felt crushed by their anonymity and the obliteration of their being.”
That same day, she went to a mosque wearing loose slacks, a long-sleeved shirt and a head scarf. A man stopped her at the entrance, carrying a worn gray fabric, with which he proposed to cover her. She refused to wear such a dirty piece of cloth. He replied: “It is cleaner than you!” As Lazreg says, the veil is a man’s problem more than a woman’s.
She has no time for feminists in the West who insist, out of God knows what perverse impulse, that the veil empowers Muslim women. That kind of academic theorizing might provoke interesting conversation but Lazreg believes it’s dangerous. She also argues against Tariq Ramadan, the most influential Muslim theologian in Europe, who believes “the turn to the veil” represents a new Islamic feminism.
She writes carefully, as a scholar who wants to tell the truth but still be taken seriously by Muslims. She thinks the revival of the veil does nothing for the rejuvenation of Muslim civilization; “it degrades Islam” and impoverishes its spirit. But she’s anxious to tell us that abandoning the veil would not constitute a victory for the West. It would be a victory for Muslim women over morally degrading restrictions.
If men approve of the veil, it is women’s job to resist their demands and recreate the independent spirit women showed in the 1950s and 1960s.
Only women can end “the politics of the veil” by making themselves agents of social change. She delivers her argument with passion and coherence but, sadly, everything is going the other way.