Wednesday, September 30, 2009
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)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
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
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.
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.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 25, 2009
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.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
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.
Monday, September 21, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
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.
Monday, September 14, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Notes on Wednesday Sept 9th's National Post
1.Page A17. Re: Tarek Fatah suggests that Islam abandon the concept of jihad. - He could also have noted that Christianity and Judaism have also abandonned doctrines incorporated in their holy books that promote evil. There are therefore precedents for Islam following the same course.
2. Page A15 Re: Letters re Cohen's message of peace. - Leonard Cohen and Naomi Klein are both Jewish Montrealers. One stands for love, peace and conciliation. The other stands for hate, war, and conflict. It is not difficult to tell which is which.
3. Page 14 Re: Gunter on Afghanistan. - Gunter is correct. All the excellent work and effort in Afghanistan could be lost by supporting the corrupt and incompetent Karzai administration.
4. Page 14 Re: Boycotting Israeli films - What a shame that Karen Mock and Peter Kent will both be competing to be the MP for the Thornhill riding. They both have contributed much to Canadian society and both are excellent people and role models. The only loser in such a contest will be Canada.
2. Page A15 Re: Letters re Cohen's message of peace. - Leonard Cohen and Naomi Klein are both Jewish Montrealers. One stands for love, peace and conciliation. The other stands for hate, war, and conflict. It is not difficult to tell which is which.
3. Page 14 Re: Gunter on Afghanistan. - Gunter is correct. All the excellent work and effort in Afghanistan could be lost by supporting the corrupt and incompetent Karzai administration.
4. Page 14 Re: Boycotting Israeli films - What a shame that Karen Mock and Peter Kent will both be competing to be the MP for the Thornhill riding. They both have contributed much to Canadian society and both are excellent people and role models. The only loser in such a contest will be Canada.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Tuesday, Sept 8th - editorials
Today, Tuesday, the National Post has an excellent editorial objecting to Islamists bringing all their complaints to the U.N. and NGO's for support; the Toronto Star, surprise, surprise, has an excellent article critical of those objecting to having Tel Aviv as the City to City choice of TIFF this year; and the Globe has an op-ed by Naomi Klein relating to TIFF that slurs Israel. Could the Star and the Globe be changing places?
Monday, September 7, 2009
City funding
I noticed that Toronto has lots of funding for the Gay Parade and other left wing projects but none for the CNE. What a pity, but it is significant.
Letter to the Globe - Monday, Sept 7th
Mr. Flynn, in his letter to the editor, states, as part of his proof of the Globe's sophistry, that "there are several Israeli signatures on the protest letter". That's true. The best of Jewish tradition is intellectual discussion and so there are many Jewish opinions on all subjects. This culture attribute results in many Jewish lawyers. The worst of Jewish tradition is intellectual discussion which results on many contrary opinions on all subjects which results in leftist Jews criticizing everything Israel does. So the fact that some Israelis and anti-Jewish Jews lke Naomi Klein follow Jewish argumentative tradition in criticizing Israel is irrelevant. While looking at the signatories to the protest, I noticed three Arab names. Two were listed from Palestine, a non-existent place, and one was from Jenin/Haifa. Two of these Arabs, Juliano Mer Khamis and Anne Marie Jaciv are Israeli citizens. Surely that in itself refutes the "Israel as an apartheid state" argument and speaks well for choosing Tel Aviv as a city in a country which in which its minorities have more rights than any of the surrounding countries.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Miscellaneous thoughts on Sunday
1. The National Post has an article about trade with China. Shouldn't we be pushing trade with India which is a democractic society without China's lack of human rights issues? Trading with India is trading with a friend. Trading with China is trading with a country with some values and objectives that we do not agree with and which we might be unintentionally supporting by trading with them.
2. I just read "The friends of Meager Fortune" by David Richards. It is a good novel about tough loggers in Nfld. Read the first 150 pages and then flip through the rest. Most novels like this one says everything it has to say in the first 100 pages.
3. I saw the movie Summer hours (it is French with subtitles and now playing at theatres). It is about the distribution of an estate - no conflicts but the end of a generation - It is sad but excellent.
4. For a good book on how to live your life, try Stephen Sims, "River of Awareness" published by Novalis. If you can't find the book, which is likely, you can reach the author at steve.sims@iasis.ca
5. Have a good beautiful day
2. I just read "The friends of Meager Fortune" by David Richards. It is a good novel about tough loggers in Nfld. Read the first 150 pages and then flip through the rest. Most novels like this one says everything it has to say in the first 100 pages.
3. I saw the movie Summer hours (it is French with subtitles and now playing at theatres). It is about the distribution of an estate - no conflicts but the end of a generation - It is sad but excellent.
4. For a good book on how to live your life, try Stephen Sims, "River of Awareness" published by Novalis. If you can't find the book, which is likely, you can reach the author at steve.sims@iasis.ca
5. Have a good beautiful day
Friday, September 4, 2009
U of T programmes
I just received the following. I hope people look at it and protest. Why does activism mean anti-establishment activity? There are lots of political activity that students could engage in that is positive and beneficial. In addition the emphasis here is undoubtedly a one-sided look at the problems of Palestinians and with colonialism. Surely events should be balanced and fair. The object of a university is to teach students to think about both sides of questions, not to propagandize, brain-wash, and support victimization politics.
Disorientation 2009 – Shoot Me! I’m Political- is a week of events being organized by the U.T.S.U and OPIRG-U of T. This week will focus on engaging the student body in political activism through an introduction to anti-oppression and social justice work being done on and off campus.
As students we recognise {sic} that our university is part of a larger community and that it is our social responsibility to engage with that community in order to have a learning experience that empowers us to take action against oppression.
Some workshops we will be hosting during the week:
Anti-War and Tamil SolidarityPalestine SolidarityWorld PovertyLocal PovertyJustice for MigrantsQueer RadicalismColonialism 101Indigenous Solidarity
Some events we will be hosting during the week:
Campus TourFree Commuter MealScreening of “Walk-out”The really, really, Free Market: Block party!Words of Resistance – Performance NightScreening of “Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance” at Philosopher’s WalkFree BBQ
Free Iftar meal for those observing Ramadan
Disorientation 2009 – Shoot Me! I’m Political- is a week of events being organized by the U.T.S.U and OPIRG-U of T. This week will focus on engaging the student body in political activism through an introduction to anti-oppression and social justice work being done on and off campus.
As students we recognise {sic} that our university is part of a larger community and that it is our social responsibility to engage with that community in order to have a learning experience that empowers us to take action against oppression.
Some workshops we will be hosting during the week:
Anti-War and Tamil SolidarityPalestine SolidarityWorld PovertyLocal PovertyJustice for MigrantsQueer RadicalismColonialism 101Indigenous Solidarity
Some events we will be hosting during the week:
Campus TourFree Commuter MealScreening of “Walk-out”The really, really, Free Market: Block party!Words of Resistance – Performance NightScreening of “Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance” at Philosopher’s WalkFree BBQ
Free Iftar meal for those observing Ramadan
Letter to the National Post - re TIFF
The protestors refer to the "Israeli propaganda machine". This is funny for it is really the Palestinian propaganda machine that is targetting Israel. There are 23 other barriers in the world, but none come under fire like Israel's. There were thousands of refugees but none are maintained by the UN and the Arab countries like the Palestinians. There is prejudice throughout the world, but no other country is accused of being apartheid. It is the Palestinian propaganda machine that is causing the problem and brain-washing our politically correct and vulnerable liberal idiot-savants. The Israeli politicos are just defending themselves from false and destructive Islamic and Palestinian rhetoric
Letter to the Star - Sept.4 2009
It is interesting that Norway's Pension Fund has discontinued its investment in the Israeli company Elbeit Systems because it participated in building the wall and because the Internatioanl Court ruled that the barrier violated the law. According to Wikipedia, there are 23 other separation walls in the world, 22 built by countries, including the U.S., Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan, and one built by the U.N between Iraq and Kuwait. The legality of these other walls has not been taken before the international court. Why not? If the Norway fund has "ethical concerns" about Israel's wall, separating it from the West Bank, why doesn't it also have "ethical concerns" about all the other separation walls? Perhaps Norway is just succumbing to political pressure from its Islamists. However it is more likely that Norway is following the current politically correct agenda to be anti-Israel. Doesn't equivalency or at least common sense kick in here somewhere?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Letter sent to Prime Minister Harper - Aug 3rd 09
President Obama recently held a dinner to honour Ramadan and the contribution of American Muslims to the United States. I suggest that you, as Prime Minister hold a similar dinner to honour the contribution of Canadian Jews to Canada on the upcoming Jewish New Year. Canadian Jews on a per capita basis joined the WW11 effort in greater numbers than any other group. We have participated in politics, the economy, the military, and all other facets of Canadian society. As a whole, we have adopted Canadian values and become an integral part of Canadian society. Such a speech would give you an opportunity to emphasize Canadian values, values based on Judeo-Christian morality. It would give you an opportunity to emphasize the importance of a good family life, which Jews are known for, our terrific English common law which is based on the best of biblical law, and our values of religious and racial equality.
A would suggest that you also hold a similar function this upcoming Christmas. We hear much about the contribution of minorities. The contribution of the majority population should also be addressed and appreciated.
A would suggest that you also hold a similar function this upcoming Christmas. We hear much about the contribution of minorities. The contribution of the majority population should also be addressed and appreciated.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Freedom of speech supporting bigotry
Accusing those you hate of suppressing your freedom of speech is now common. Obviously the best defence is an offence. Freedom of expression is now the usual defence in support of the freedom to hate and defame and to support these freedoms with lies. It is political correctness gone too far and used against us by our enemies. We are in a double bind of not "offending" Muslims while allowing them free speech to offend us. Perhaps we should claim that their hatred offends us as well. Offending someone seems to be considered worse nowadays than vilifying someone.
Letter to the Globe - Sept 1, 2009
More Swedish neutrality - Swedish newspaper's anti-semitism
Just as the CEO of a company is responsible for all the statements of personnel in a business, so the Swedish government is responsible for all that happens within its jurisdiction. The reason for the government's silence might well be fear of Muslim violence, but if so, cowardice does not justify their neutrality on the issue. Denying responsibility is equivalent to agreement. They owe Israel and all Jews an apology.
Just as the CEO of a company is responsible for all the statements of personnel in a business, so the Swedish government is responsible for all that happens within its jurisdiction. The reason for the government's silence might well be fear of Muslim violence, but if so, cowardice does not justify their neutrality on the issue. Denying responsibility is equivalent to agreement. They owe Israel and all Jews an apology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)