21:16 Police: Sec_
JPost.com opinioncolumnists Square circles, aerodynamic pigs and two states By MARTIN SHERMAN 03/29/2012 21:39 Into the Fray: When somebody says they want to kill you, you should believe them. By REUTERS
Goals: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. Method: Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic… in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished.... Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine.
– Fatah Constitution
Israel will exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it…. Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…. The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight [kill] the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
– Hamas Charter
When somebody says they want to kill you, you should believe them.
– A Holocaust survivor
In his endeavor to rebut my recent column “Disputing Dershowitz,” Alan Dershowitz displays a regrettable tendency to embrace the self-contradictory and the disingenuous, rather than concede error.
Disappointing Dershowitz
His “The Case Against the Left and Right One- State Solution” (Huffington Post, 21/3/2012) is a disappointing mixture of ad hominem jibes, highly selective – and questionable – statistics, “straw-man” tactics, and misrepresentation of the issues raised and the arguments articulated in my article.
The notion of the feasibility of a two-state resolution to the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs is not only demonstrably one of the most devastatingly dangerous threats to the physical existence of the Jewish state, but also to its democratic character and international legitimacy – however counter-intuitive that may appear initially to some.
Accordingly, I feel duty-bound to devote my coming columns to a comprehensive and categorical repudiation of any claims – empirical and conceptual – to the contrary.
In this article, I will present a general overview of the fallacious underpinnings of the two-state approach, deferring a detailed refutation of the flawed arguments, offensive incriminations and misplaced hysterics aired by its proponents for next week.
Which part of ‘Itbach al-Yahud’ don’t they get?
Strange isn’t it? When threats of murderous intent emanate from Tehran, you can take them seriously – even express concern at to their gravity – without being “excommunicated” from polite mainstream company. But dare to suggest that the murderous intent expressed by the Palestinians – indeed, the proven murderous deeds perpetrated by them – should be taken seriously, and may actually have practical policy implications, you are instantly dismissed as an “extremist naysayer” or “religious radical.”
True, Iranian ambitions presently seem to be a bit more “wholesale” in scope relative to the hitherto “retail” dimensions of Palestinian endeavors, but that reflects limitations on current capabilities rather than any benevolence of heart.
One can only shake one’s head in bafflement and wonder which part of the clearly-stated two-stage component in the Palestinians’ interpretation of the two-state principle escapes well-meaning folk like Dershowitz; and which part of their undisguised intention of Itbach al-Yahud (Slaughter the Jew) they don’t quite grasp.
And darkness descended upon the land
Up until the early 1990s, the notion of a Palestinian state was anathema in mainstream Israeli politics – vehemently condemned by all except radical left-wing margins of society. Indeed, contacts with the PLO were prohibited and punishable – in fact, punished – by law.
Then came Oslo, and darkness descended upon the land – in the name of “enlightenment.”
Support for the two-state solution became the imperative credential for acceptance into the bon-ton circles of Israeli society.
Intellectual tyranny was imposed on public and academic discourse. No heretical doubts were brooked as to the validity of what was deemed masterful statesmanship and the practical fulfillment of a “noble” (or is that “Nobel”?) aspiration.
For anyone with the temerity to break ranks, sanctions were swift and severe – both personally and professionally. Party-pooping was a hazardous taboo to violate. After all, why ruin the carnival of festivities? Prestigious prizes were awarded in Oslo (where else?), visions of a “New Middle East” were bandied at international conferences, and historic handshakes photographed on White House lawns.
Soon, however, “the rubber hit the road,” so to speak; the tragic consequences of the childlike Oslowian naiveté were upon us. The juvenile euphoria evaporated and gave way to the horrific reality of carnage in the nation’s streets, restaurants, buses and cafes – just as the “extremist naysayers” had cautioned.
Disingenuous intellectual peacocks
When the Oslo process emerged as the harbinger of a dramatic discontinuity in the evolution of Zionist endeavor, ushering in the previously spurned notion of Palestinian statehood as an acceptable–even preferred–policy option, there were proponents who promised it would provide great benefits, and opponents who warned it would wreak great harm.
Almost two decades late,r the results are in. The prevailing realities constitute almost an exact reflection of the ominous prognoses of the opponents; and the diametric antithesis of the rosy predictions of the proponents. Indeed, the Oslowian initiative has precipitated virtually all the deadly dangers that were foretold – but none of the enticing benefits that were pledged.
It is difficult to conceive of greater professional failure than that of the pro-Oslo advocates. Disregarding virtually every principle of political science, international relations, and other relevant disciples, to conform to the dictates of political correctness, they wrought precisely the dismal reality their “extremist” opponents warned they would.
As Prof. Efraim Karsh trenchantly points out: Had such professional misconduct occurred in the natural or physical sciences there would have doubtless been serious consequences: e.g. the collapse of a bridge following phoney engineering calculations dangerous side effects hidden during the development of a new medicine…. Yet it would seem that when it comes to the social sciences or the humanities… the researcher can escape punishment for the worst kind of malpractice.
Yet unchastened by the calamitous dimensions of the debacle, the authors/endorsers of this predictable –and predicted – tragedy still adjudge themselves to be the voices of far-sighted wisdom and clear-sighted reason.
Disdainfully dismissive of any dissenting voices, who point out how disastrously destructive their misguided conduct has been, they steadfastly deny any error and continue peddling the same noxious wares in marginally different wrappings.
Instead of bowing their heads in shame and slinking off in disgrace – as quietly and inconspicuously as possible – to the outer fringes of public life, they strut around like intellectual peacocks – as if their unmitigated failure conferred on them some kind of moral superiority.
Futile, unnecessary, detrimental
In his previously mentioned attempt to rebut my negation of the two-state principle, Dershowitz claims that unless Israel accedes to the establishment of a Palestinian state, it will lose its international legitimacy as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people.
This is a shallow and superficial contention. It is not only conceptually unsound – although the tyrannical muzzling of debate has prevented rational discussion of other compelling alternatives that are both Zionist and democracy-compliant – but it also flies in the face of facts.
After all, apart from a brief flush of international approval immediately following the signature of the Oslo Accords, Israel’s international standing has deteriorated alarming since declaring its willingness to establish a Palestinian state. (The causal mechanism which made this regrettable result inevitable will be elaborated in Part II next week.) This is what makes the entire two-state initiative so infuriating.
Not only did it prove completely futile, it was totally unnecessary – worse, gravely counterproductive, with international delegitimization of Israel today far more pervasive and virulent than it was before the Oslowian misadventure!
Indeed, though the mainstream media – both at home and abroad – have been meticulous in obscuring or misrepresenting the facts, Israel was doing very well in the pre-Oslo years under the recalcitrant Yitzhak Shamir, who steadfastly rejected any notion of a two-state approach.
Setting the record straight
By 1992, the (first) Intifada had virtually petered out, leaving the Palestinians exhausted – among other things, by internecine fratricide with as many perishing at the hands of their kinfolk as were killed by the Israeli security forces. It certainly had no inhibiting effect on the economy. Fueled by the burgeoning immigration from the former-USSR, economic growth soared, exceeding 7 percent in 1992.
While it is true that economic growth was also impressive immediately following the signing of Oslo I, it fell quickly as the Palestinian violence spiraled upwards. The average growth in the three years immediately preceding Oslo I (6.6 % in 1990-92) was higher than that in the three years immediately following it. (6.1% in 1994-96), and easily outstripped the growth in the three years following Oslo II (3.4 % in 1996-99). (Significantly the higher pre-Oslo growth was achieved without the massive budget deficit incurred in the post-Oslo years by the Rabin-Peres government that brought the country to the brink of economic disaster averted, only by the drastic austerity measures of the first Netanyahu government.)
Diplomatically, the country was far from being isolated. Israel scored dramatic pre-Oslo successes, establishing full diplomatic ties with Russia (in October, 1991, a quarter century since the USSR cut ties in 1967 ), India and China (both in January 1992). Strangely, these countries –comprising 40% of the world’s population –appeared singularly unperturbed by the Shamir government’s resolute “rejectionist” stance on Palestinian statehood.
True, following the Oslo Agreements, a spate of countries did forge relations with Israel. But this was far more symbolic than substantive – with all due respect to exotic locations such Andorra, Burkina Faso, Botswana, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Burundi, Cape Verde, Croatia, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, Rwanda, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe – which comprised the overwhelming bulk of the post-1993 additions to the list of counties with diplomatic relations with Israel.
Moreover, one might well be excused for wondering whether the coveted goal of relations with Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe – which, with their proud tradition of human rights, understandably felt morally constrained from establishing formal ties with the Jewish state previously – represented a diplomatic coup worth the thousands of Israelis murdered and maimed by Palestinian violence that the Oslowian quest for two-state “solution” ushered in?
An increasingly oxymoronic endeavor
As the notion of a two-state resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is exposed as an endeavor increasingly detached from reality, its proponents seem to be advancing increasingly preposterous arguments – in a desperate attempt to avoid admission of error.
As it becomes increasingly clear that they can no longer sustain the illusion of the continued validity of their proposed paradigm by any reality- based corroboration, they turn to ignoring, inventing – even inverting – inconvenient facts.
They have thus been coerced into postulating a virtual reality, inhabited by imaginary Palestinians, docile and cuddly, who are presumed to be ready to accept – not only as a short-term stratagem, but on sincere and permanent basis – conditions rejected repeatedly and resolutely by their real-world counterparts. Of course, no persuasive rationale is ever provided to explain why or how such a dramatic metamorphosis in Palestinian attitudes would occur.
Indeed, bereft of any factual foundations, the “two-staters” have tried to transform their disproven political credo into axiomatic political dogma, a self-evident truth, unencumbered by the need for shouldering any bothersome burden of proof.
Likewise, bereft of any doctrinal consistency, “two-staters” embrace self-contradictory – or disingenuous–provisos.
Thus, when Dershowitz conditions the imperative for the establishment of a Palestinian state on “secure borders” for Israel, is he really unaware that the two cannot be reconciled; that the minimal territorial pre-requisites for “secure borders” make a Palestinian state untenable as a sovereign entity?
Is he really so woefully ignorant, or is he willfully ignoring the fact that the Palestinians have already firmly refused far-more magnanimous offers made by Barak and Olmert, who in their obsessive and irresponsible pursuit of an unattainable two-state vision were prepared to forego any semblance of secure borders?
Ignorance or ignominy?
There is nothing enlightened or democratic about support for a two-state solution. It will save neither the Zionist dream nor Israeli democracy. Quite the contrary, it will consign both to oblivion. Only political naiveté or social narcissism can account for further support for this failed concept. It is the hallmark not of the erudite, informed liberal but of either abject ignorance about prevailing realities or ignominious pandering to political faddism.
For a further elaboration – and corroboration – of this ongoing case against the two-state delusion, watch this space!
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The One Jewish State Solution
The One Jewish State Solution
In light of the events currently happening in the Middle East, the two state solution has lost its justification. I am in favor of Palestinians having rights. But I am also in favor of Jews, my own people, having rights as well. If the West Bank of the Jordan River becomes a state, all Jews will be excluded from the area. They will have no rights, as they have no rights, or much reduced rights and security, in the adjoining Arab lands. If on the other hand, Israel were to annex the West Bank, the Arabs would retain most, if not all, of their rights. So here we are balancing no rights for Jews against some or complete rights for Arabs. As a Jew, I most support the Jewish claim. As a liberal person who must balance the benefits and disadvantages of the two groups, I must also support the Jewish claim. As a believer in democracy and equality for all and who prefers English common law to Sharia law, I must also support the Jewish claim.
Now let us realistic look at the probable nature and result of a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the Jordan. (There is already a mostly Palestinian state of the east side of the Jordan River.). The disappointing results of the Arab Spring would probably also come to Palestine. Islamism and sharia law would probably dominate, bringing poverty to the Palestinians and perhaps terrorism to the rest of the world. Since one of the major objectives of the PLO remains to destroy Israel, and since their media continues to demonize Israel, it is likely that a serious war will occur. If Israel knows it will lose, it will use its nuclear weapons to defend itself. So in my opinion, a Palestinian state, other than Jordan, will probably bring war to the Middle East and perhaps to the rest of the world.
The other question is whether Jewish culture and religion have anything to offer the world. If the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) comes under Israeli rule, Arab and Muslim culture will not be lost. If Israel is defeated and their population killed or expelled, Judaism and Jewish culture may be lost and Jews may again become the most persecuted people in the world. If you believe that Judaism and its people have something to offer, than Israel must be protected. If not, then of course it is not worth fighting for.
In summary, I support the annexation of Judea and Samaria by Israel in order to preserve an important culture, (the same way we protect animals from extinction), as a measure of fairness between two competing groups, and as a method to avoid a potentially catastrophic war.
In light of the events currently happening in the Middle East, the two state solution has lost its justification. I am in favor of Palestinians having rights. But I am also in favor of Jews, my own people, having rights as well. If the West Bank of the Jordan River becomes a state, all Jews will be excluded from the area. They will have no rights, as they have no rights, or much reduced rights and security, in the adjoining Arab lands. If on the other hand, Israel were to annex the West Bank, the Arabs would retain most, if not all, of their rights. So here we are balancing no rights for Jews against some or complete rights for Arabs. As a Jew, I most support the Jewish claim. As a liberal person who must balance the benefits and disadvantages of the two groups, I must also support the Jewish claim. As a believer in democracy and equality for all and who prefers English common law to Sharia law, I must also support the Jewish claim.
Now let us realistic look at the probable nature and result of a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the Jordan. (There is already a mostly Palestinian state of the east side of the Jordan River.). The disappointing results of the Arab Spring would probably also come to Palestine. Islamism and sharia law would probably dominate, bringing poverty to the Palestinians and perhaps terrorism to the rest of the world. Since one of the major objectives of the PLO remains to destroy Israel, and since their media continues to demonize Israel, it is likely that a serious war will occur. If Israel knows it will lose, it will use its nuclear weapons to defend itself. So in my opinion, a Palestinian state, other than Jordan, will probably bring war to the Middle East and perhaps to the rest of the world.
The other question is whether Jewish culture and religion have anything to offer the world. If the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) comes under Israeli rule, Arab and Muslim culture will not be lost. If Israel is defeated and their population killed or expelled, Judaism and Jewish culture may be lost and Jews may again become the most persecuted people in the world. If you believe that Judaism and its people have something to offer, than Israel must be protected. If not, then of course it is not worth fighting for.
In summary, I support the annexation of Judea and Samaria by Israel in order to preserve an important culture, (the same way we protect animals from extinction), as a measure of fairness between two competing groups, and as a method to avoid a potentially catastrophic war.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
March on Jerusalem
March on Jerusalem, March 30, 2012
A group of Palestinians and their fellow travellers, estimated to be in the thousands, are planning to meet on the borders of Israel on March 30th to march to Jerusalem. In Canada a supportive protest by Palestinian House and other pro-Palestinian groups will be held on Friday March 30th outside the Israeli consulate. It is a protest against the Judaisation of Jerusalem. The Global March to Jerusalem North America web site describes the objective of the march as to “Join thousands of Palestinians and supporters from all over the world who will be marching on March 30, 2012 to oppose Israel apartheid and ethnic-cleansing, to demand access to Jerusalem for all peoples, and to uphold Palestinian rights under international law, including refugees’ ”right of return.”
These stated objectives include opposing Israel apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Gaza has implemented ethnic cleansing and apartheid of Jews. Israel has done neither to its Arab citizens. The Palestinians have never had a city for all peoples. Cities under Palestinian rule have always excluded Jews. International law, by the San Remo Conference, says that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan) belong to Israel, not to the Palestinians. Most importantly a right of return for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants would destroy the Jewish nature of Israel.
It is to be noted that
1. Any mass attempt to cross Israel’s borders is a show of strength and hostile aggression. In no way should it be considered a peace march or a protest march.
2. Palestinians, especially women and children, will die. This is intentional
and necessary for Palestinian propaganda purposes.
3. Reporters will get most of their information from the Palestinians
4. Palestinian ambulances will carry weapons and otherwise help in inappropriate
ways.
Here is an imagined copy of the Reuters report on the March 30th 2012 march on Jerusalem.
It doesn’t really matter that the event has not occurred. Similar events have occurred
so many times that the Reuters reporting and the actions of the Palestinians and
the Israelis are quite predictable. The march will be described as a protest, not as an organized attempt to annex or destroy the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. If Israel fails to stop Hamas’ hordes from entering Israel it will be a first step in an attempt to overthrow the Jewish State of Israel.
The Reuters “Report”
On the evening of Thursday March 30th Palestinians began lining up at the Israeli
Border in the Egyptian Sinai. They waved Palestinian flags and had signs reading
“Jerusalem is ours.”, “We hate the State of Israel.” and “jihad to Jerusalem”. Generally the mood was happy, like people out for a picnic. By morning protesters had reached the Israeli border. The brash and heartless Israeli soldiers ordered them to stop and then fired indiscriminately into the crowd, injuring many and killing three young women and a schoolboy of 14. Onlookers were heard to cry – “Murderers”, “How can they kill women and children?”, and “We want revenge.”
It is estimated that 50 people were injured in the massacre. Judge Judy Cohen of New York said that Israel had used excessive force and that the circumstances did not call for
Israel to use live ammunition. Israel apologized for the personal damage and agreed to pay compensation to the victims. The U.N. Human Rights Commission will be holding meetings on the matter and calling for sanctions against Israel.
A group of Palestinians and their fellow travellers, estimated to be in the thousands, are planning to meet on the borders of Israel on March 30th to march to Jerusalem. In Canada a supportive protest by Palestinian House and other pro-Palestinian groups will be held on Friday March 30th outside the Israeli consulate. It is a protest against the Judaisation of Jerusalem. The Global March to Jerusalem North America web site describes the objective of the march as to “Join thousands of Palestinians and supporters from all over the world who will be marching on March 30, 2012 to oppose Israel apartheid and ethnic-cleansing, to demand access to Jerusalem for all peoples, and to uphold Palestinian rights under international law, including refugees’ ”right of return.”
These stated objectives include opposing Israel apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Gaza has implemented ethnic cleansing and apartheid of Jews. Israel has done neither to its Arab citizens. The Palestinians have never had a city for all peoples. Cities under Palestinian rule have always excluded Jews. International law, by the San Remo Conference, says that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan) belong to Israel, not to the Palestinians. Most importantly a right of return for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants would destroy the Jewish nature of Israel.
It is to be noted that
1. Any mass attempt to cross Israel’s borders is a show of strength and hostile aggression. In no way should it be considered a peace march or a protest march.
2. Palestinians, especially women and children, will die. This is intentional
and necessary for Palestinian propaganda purposes.
3. Reporters will get most of their information from the Palestinians
4. Palestinian ambulances will carry weapons and otherwise help in inappropriate
ways.
Here is an imagined copy of the Reuters report on the March 30th 2012 march on Jerusalem.
It doesn’t really matter that the event has not occurred. Similar events have occurred
so many times that the Reuters reporting and the actions of the Palestinians and
the Israelis are quite predictable. The march will be described as a protest, not as an organized attempt to annex or destroy the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. If Israel fails to stop Hamas’ hordes from entering Israel it will be a first step in an attempt to overthrow the Jewish State of Israel.
The Reuters “Report”
On the evening of Thursday March 30th Palestinians began lining up at the Israeli
Border in the Egyptian Sinai. They waved Palestinian flags and had signs reading
“Jerusalem is ours.”, “We hate the State of Israel.” and “jihad to Jerusalem”. Generally the mood was happy, like people out for a picnic. By morning protesters had reached the Israeli border. The brash and heartless Israeli soldiers ordered them to stop and then fired indiscriminately into the crowd, injuring many and killing three young women and a schoolboy of 14. Onlookers were heard to cry – “Murderers”, “How can they kill women and children?”, and “We want revenge.”
It is estimated that 50 people were injured in the massacre. Judge Judy Cohen of New York said that Israel had used excessive force and that the circumstances did not call for
Israel to use live ammunition. Israel apologized for the personal damage and agreed to pay compensation to the victims. The U.N. Human Rights Commission will be holding meetings on the matter and calling for sanctions against Israel.
Abbas' Resignation
Welcoming Abbas' Resignation
Think out of the box! If Abbas dissolves the P.A. it will leave Judea and Samaria with no leadership. Control and responsiblity for that area will be left to Israel. This will give Israel an opportunity to annex the area without serious opposition of the neighboring countries. At the moment they are more concerned with Iran and the Arab Spring. Any annexation will be safer before Iran acquires nuclear weapons and before the Islamic leaders of the Arab Spring gain complete power. The result of annexation will be a better chance for peace in the area. It will be the one Jewish state solution set up in accordance with international law as defined by the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference
Think out of the box! If Abbas dissolves the P.A. it will leave Judea and Samaria with no leadership. Control and responsiblity for that area will be left to Israel. This will give Israel an opportunity to annex the area without serious opposition of the neighboring countries. At the moment they are more concerned with Iran and the Arab Spring. Any annexation will be safer before Iran acquires nuclear weapons and before the Islamic leaders of the Arab Spring gain complete power. The result of annexation will be a better chance for peace in the area. It will be the one Jewish state solution set up in accordance with international law as defined by the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference
Letter to NP re De Souza - March 15th
De Souza is right. The police need watching. After many incidents of abuse and
lack of enforcement by the police, we, the people of Ontario in particular, have lost faith in police use
of common sense in who they arrest and whom they carefully watch to ensure there
is no violent conflict that would reflect badly on them. At the same time the courts have shown
a leniency to wrong-doers that is simply beyond imagination. Harper's anti-crime bill is designed
to solve the latter problem. Hopefully his next task will be to solve the administration of the police
problem.
lack of enforcement by the police, we, the people of Ontario in particular, have lost faith in police use
of common sense in who they arrest and whom they carefully watch to ensure there
is no violent conflict that would reflect badly on them. At the same time the courts have shown
a leniency to wrong-doers that is simply beyond imagination. Harper's anti-crime bill is designed
to solve the latter problem. Hopefully his next task will be to solve the administration of the police
problem.
letter to NP re Balsillie
Islamism, yes. Capitalism, no
The times do change! Funds pour into our universities from Saudi Arabia and their Islamist
friends to fund University Middle East Departments. It is naive to think that foreign doners
will not exercise some under-the-table influence. That is their traditional way of operating.
In addition special university rates are given by our Ontario government to foreign students
who may or may not be chosen by their native countries for their abilities to influence
Canadian university thought and procedure. University teachers haven't objected to these
potentially very harmful influences on our universities and yet they object to being influenced by a Canadian capitalist
think tank that is up-front about its desire to partially control how its money is spent. It seems that the
university teachers are already so brain washed with leftist anti- Canadian values that Balsillies' influence
is not only required but can only be beneficial to our universities.
The times do change! Funds pour into our universities from Saudi Arabia and their Islamist
friends to fund University Middle East Departments. It is naive to think that foreign doners
will not exercise some under-the-table influence. That is their traditional way of operating.
In addition special university rates are given by our Ontario government to foreign students
who may or may not be chosen by their native countries for their abilities to influence
Canadian university thought and procedure. University teachers haven't objected to these
potentially very harmful influences on our universities and yet they object to being influenced by a Canadian capitalist
think tank that is up-front about its desire to partially control how its money is spent. It seems that the
university teachers are already so brain washed with leftist anti- Canadian values that Balsillies' influence
is not only required but can only be beneficial to our universities.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Letter to Toronto Sun - re Reuters - page 34
Half-truths by Reuters
It pains me to see the Sun repeat the Reuters news clips that are sent from Gaza.
They speak about "a familiar pattern" of violence. That is true, but it hides the whole truth -
that the violence is always begun by Hamas' militants. In this case it hides the truth that over 100 rockets shelled Israeli cities and citizens before Israel responded. The article also omitted to say that the Palestinian rockets usually kill no Israelis because Israel has prepared its citizens with bomb shelters and protective rooms in each apartment or building. Hamas on the other hand has provided no protection for its citizens and allows the militants to fire rockets from near civilian buildings, virtually forcing Israel to inadvertantly kill Palestinian civilians.
Without this background and with the heading reading "Israeli attacks kill boy, militant", it appears that Israel is the aggressor. It is not. At the minimum the Sun heading should read: "Palestinian boy killed in counteract" or "100 Palestinian rockets yield counterattack and death of Palestinian boy".
It pains me to see the Sun repeat the Reuters news clips that are sent from Gaza.
They speak about "a familiar pattern" of violence. That is true, but it hides the whole truth -
that the violence is always begun by Hamas' militants. In this case it hides the truth that over 100 rockets shelled Israeli cities and citizens before Israel responded. The article also omitted to say that the Palestinian rockets usually kill no Israelis because Israel has prepared its citizens with bomb shelters and protective rooms in each apartment or building. Hamas on the other hand has provided no protection for its citizens and allows the militants to fire rockets from near civilian buildings, virtually forcing Israel to inadvertantly kill Palestinian civilians.
Without this background and with the heading reading "Israeli attacks kill boy, militant", it appears that Israel is the aggressor. It is not. At the minimum the Sun heading should read: "Palestinian boy killed in counteract" or "100 Palestinian rockets yield counterattack and death of Palestinian boy".
Friday, March 9, 2012
National Post
Joffe and Romirowsky are looking at a human monster and seeing Prince Charming. The Palestinians are not an ancient people. Their ancestors in 1900 numbered about 500,000, 8% of whom were Jews. Incoming laborers to support Jewish projects made up the majority of what are now called the Palestinians. The name Palestine itself referred to an area lived in by tenant farmers and ruled for the last thousand years by Turkey. They are therefore a false people living in a land that under international law (The San Remo Conference of 1920) belongs to Israel. Their new prosperity is not the result of ingenuity and hard work, but of European and United Nations funding. Their social structure includes the oppression of women including honour killings, hatred of gays, the glorification of suicide bombers and others who have murdered Israeli civilians, the attempt to eliminate Jews from their areas, and the oppression and
forced emigration of much of their Christian community. Politically their charter includes the elimination of Israel
by war, attrition or negotiation as one of their main aims. Joffe and Romirowsky have chosen to close their eyes
to the realities of a small group of Arabs with superb self-promotion skills, who, with the help of their Islamist fellow travellers, are trying to rid the area of Jews. It is hardly a project to be admired or supported.
forced emigration of much of their Christian community. Politically their charter includes the elimination of Israel
by war, attrition or negotiation as one of their main aims. Joffe and Romirowsky have chosen to close their eyes
to the realities of a small group of Arabs with superb self-promotion skills, who, with the help of their Islamist fellow travellers, are trying to rid the area of Jews. It is hardly a project to be admired or supported.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The One Jewish state solution
Thhis is an unpublished letter in response to an op-ed in the National Post. Ambassador Said Hamad’s op-ed, like many of the writings of his fellow travelers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, is well written but his argument is based
on both wrong facts and gross omissions of information. Despite the repetition of theories and desires based on historically incorrect information, the truth remains and must be repeated clearly in order to understand the problems of Israel and its supposed expansionism.
Israel is not an occupier of Palestinian territory. The West Bank or Judea and Samaria was illegally annexed by Jordan in 1950 and then won in a defensive war from Jordan in 1967. It never was “Palestinian territory” because Palestine is not now nor has it ever been a recognized state. For the last 1000 years Jews and Arabs have lived peacefully together in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the other smaller cities. The area was ruled by Turkey. Most of the land was owned by landowners who lived in Syria or Turkey. Until the arrival of substantial numbers of Jews in 1900, it was a very poor, unpopulated, desolate, mostly ignored area of the world. Then, when Jews began to immigrate there in larger numbers, the situation and the attitudes changed. Arabs also began to immigrate in large numbers because jobs opened up with Jewish immigration. After the first world war when the whole middle east was taken from the Turks and arbitrarily divided into countries, the area called Palestine was assigned to be a homeland for Jews. Pursuant to the San Remo Agreement of 1920, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) became, under international law, Jewish lands with the Arabs who live there entitled to no political rights. Arabs have no rights under the 4th Geneva Convention because Judea and Samaria are Jewish lands and you can’t occupy your own land. In addition the 4th Geneva Convention applies to occupied lands of different states and Palestine has never been a recognized state. Lastly, although the Canadian government has not changed the Foreign Affairs Department website, the information there is obviously outdated since our Conservative government changed Liberal “neutral” policy. Canada is no longer neutral and a follower of the U.N. majority. It is a strong independent force for good in many areas, including the Middle East
Now I suggest the following omissions. The Israeli government has not claimed Judea and Samaria, not because it was not theirs, but because they didn’t have the population to fill the land. Ambassador Hamad knows full well that a right of return of thousands of “refugees” would swamp Israel and destroy it as a Jewish homeland. He also knows that the Constitution of Fatah, the government of the West Bank contains statements that their
prime objective is to destroy Israel. The same statements are in Hamas’ constitution. Lastly, as everyone knows, since Israel left Gaza and it has been entirely controlled by Arabs, Gaza has been a continuous source of violence and aggression against Israel. A peaceful solution, other than peace by destroying Israel, therefore will not come fromgranting a right of return, nor from Israel leaving Judea and Samaria. As Arab objectives are not to form a peaceful country but to destroy Israel through war, land grants, or terrorism, peace will not come soon to the Middle East.
on both wrong facts and gross omissions of information. Despite the repetition of theories and desires based on historically incorrect information, the truth remains and must be repeated clearly in order to understand the problems of Israel and its supposed expansionism.
Israel is not an occupier of Palestinian territory. The West Bank or Judea and Samaria was illegally annexed by Jordan in 1950 and then won in a defensive war from Jordan in 1967. It never was “Palestinian territory” because Palestine is not now nor has it ever been a recognized state. For the last 1000 years Jews and Arabs have lived peacefully together in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the other smaller cities. The area was ruled by Turkey. Most of the land was owned by landowners who lived in Syria or Turkey. Until the arrival of substantial numbers of Jews in 1900, it was a very poor, unpopulated, desolate, mostly ignored area of the world. Then, when Jews began to immigrate there in larger numbers, the situation and the attitudes changed. Arabs also began to immigrate in large numbers because jobs opened up with Jewish immigration. After the first world war when the whole middle east was taken from the Turks and arbitrarily divided into countries, the area called Palestine was assigned to be a homeland for Jews. Pursuant to the San Remo Agreement of 1920, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) became, under international law, Jewish lands with the Arabs who live there entitled to no political rights. Arabs have no rights under the 4th Geneva Convention because Judea and Samaria are Jewish lands and you can’t occupy your own land. In addition the 4th Geneva Convention applies to occupied lands of different states and Palestine has never been a recognized state. Lastly, although the Canadian government has not changed the Foreign Affairs Department website, the information there is obviously outdated since our Conservative government changed Liberal “neutral” policy. Canada is no longer neutral and a follower of the U.N. majority. It is a strong independent force for good in many areas, including the Middle East
Now I suggest the following omissions. The Israeli government has not claimed Judea and Samaria, not because it was not theirs, but because they didn’t have the population to fill the land. Ambassador Hamad knows full well that a right of return of thousands of “refugees” would swamp Israel and destroy it as a Jewish homeland. He also knows that the Constitution of Fatah, the government of the West Bank contains statements that their
prime objective is to destroy Israel. The same statements are in Hamas’ constitution. Lastly, as everyone knows, since Israel left Gaza and it has been entirely controlled by Arabs, Gaza has been a continuous source of violence and aggression against Israel. A peaceful solution, other than peace by destroying Israel, therefore will not come fromgranting a right of return, nor from Israel leaving Judea and Samaria. As Arab objectives are not to form a peaceful country but to destroy Israel through war, land grants, or terrorism, peace will not come soon to the Middle East.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Re; barbara Kay my letter to the National Post
Barbara Kay is absolutely right. Unfortunately many Canadian Jews including
our academics follow the leftist, pro-Palestinian, anti-zionist line. Luckily Torontonians
have Torontonian Salomon Benzimra's factual book on international law relating to Israel
to educate us, as well as the Canadian branch of a wonderful and remarkable Israeli organizion called
The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel to enlighten us on their legal and social
efforts to counter post -zionism and bring a reasonable and enlightened Judaism
back to Israeli society. Unfortunately the Jewish community has failed to take advantage
of this information. Only in Canada you say? Unfortunately not.
our academics follow the leftist, pro-Palestinian, anti-zionist line. Luckily Torontonians
have Torontonian Salomon Benzimra's factual book on international law relating to Israel
to educate us, as well as the Canadian branch of a wonderful and remarkable Israeli organizion called
The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel to enlighten us on their legal and social
efforts to counter post -zionism and bring a reasonable and enlightened Judaism
back to Israeli society. Unfortunately the Jewish community has failed to take advantage
of this information. Only in Canada you say? Unfortunately not.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Re; Barbara Kay - Letter to National Post - religious equivalency
Barbara Kay is right in saying that schools shouldn't teach equivalency in religions and that it is impossible to teach only facts. However the real problem is that we
are a country with a culture, morals, and values based on the Old and New Testaments. If we say that all values are equal then we lose our sense of right and wrong and the values which make Canada such a great country. I don't want Canadian values to be considered equal or to be replaced by whatever values and culture is now dominant in Saudi Arabia. Ours is better and I want to keep it that way.
are a country with a culture, morals, and values based on the Old and New Testaments. If we say that all values are equal then we lose our sense of right and wrong and the values which make Canada such a great country. I don't want Canadian values to be considered equal or to be replaced by whatever values and culture is now dominant in Saudi Arabia. Ours is better and I want to keep it that way.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
hate speeches and universities - letter
Note - The real point is that Univeristy Presidents don't distinquish between speech
which is almost hate speech and are rants against Israel based on slanders and lies, and true criticisms of Israel. The former are not illegal but should be prohibitted and the latter should be permitted. However if the university
administration, faculty and student body cannot tell the difference, there is a problem.
Unpublished letter - The problem is greater than firing bad teachers. It is not only a question of students learning enough facts but also of learning to think and to recognize right from wrong and truth from propaganda.
This is most obvious in our universities. Students at UWO face no punishment for disrupting approved of speeches and presentations, and the President of McMaster cannot distinquish a hate speech against Israel and Zionists, which quotes falsehoods as facts, from a speech about Israel's faults and problems. Students, whether at high school or university, should learn more than facts. They should learn to think - to distinquish between fact and fiction and good and evil. In addition they should be taught that all things are not equal and that our Canadian value system is excellent and worthy of support.
Teachers or professors who are incapable of understanding the above, in addition to their specific subjects, and who teach their students only to be politically correct should be let go as they are truly not doing their job.
which is almost hate speech and are rants against Israel based on slanders and lies, and true criticisms of Israel. The former are not illegal but should be prohibitted and the latter should be permitted. However if the university
administration, faculty and student body cannot tell the difference, there is a problem.
Unpublished letter - The problem is greater than firing bad teachers. It is not only a question of students learning enough facts but also of learning to think and to recognize right from wrong and truth from propaganda.
This is most obvious in our universities. Students at UWO face no punishment for disrupting approved of speeches and presentations, and the President of McMaster cannot distinquish a hate speech against Israel and Zionists, which quotes falsehoods as facts, from a speech about Israel's faults and problems. Students, whether at high school or university, should learn more than facts. They should learn to think - to distinquish between fact and fiction and good and evil. In addition they should be taught that all things are not equal and that our Canadian value system is excellent and worthy of support.
Teachers or professors who are incapable of understanding the above, in addition to their specific subjects, and who teach their students only to be politically correct should be let go as they are truly not doing their job.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Police functions
Police functions
It is time to review the functions of the police. They have failed to act in two of their most important functions. They are police. Their function is to stop people from breaking the law or if they can’t do that then to find the people who broke the law. The latter can be discouraging when the courts are lenient with criminals and the police must catch the same person again and again. However that is their job. Recently however in cases dealing with public protests they have failed to enforce the law and instead ensured that neither side in the protest or counter protest was injured. Their function is to enforce the law, not to act as witnesses so the matter can more factually be discussed at a later date. There is a comparison here with our army when they were part of the UN mission as intermediaries between two warring parties. If the parties were peaceful then everything was fine but if war or conflict broke out, our troops closed their eyes and left the scene. That was their job, although it was not useful. That is not the job of the police. They must, if possible, enforce the law at the time it is being broken.
Imagine if the police watched a home invasion happen without interfering and then later tried to identify the thieves. It sounds ridiculous but this is how
the police handle protests.
The second problem is that the police think that they are the only ones that can enforce the law and that the public is wrong to act in self defence. Thus people who act in their own defence are dragged off the prison or charged. Usually, thank goodness, they are eventually freed by the courts after much mental stress. Statistics indicate that there is less crime where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. That saves lives even though there will be instances where guns will be wrongfully used to hurt others. The real problem is the use by criminals, not by people who want to protect themselves.
Lastly the police often seem mean and foolish. They hide behind bushes to give tickets. They give tickets for driving offences that are posted, but unreasonable. They spend much of their time at construction sites, talking to the construction workers and obviously doing nothing useful. They won’t answer the simple question of “How many points will that ticket cost me?” I know it’s a tough job, but my experience with the police is that when they are on duty they are neither polite nor helpful. It’s no wonder that they are not getting the respect that they deserve and would get if they were doing their job in an efficient and friendly way.
It is time to review the functions of the police. They have failed to act in two of their most important functions. They are police. Their function is to stop people from breaking the law or if they can’t do that then to find the people who broke the law. The latter can be discouraging when the courts are lenient with criminals and the police must catch the same person again and again. However that is their job. Recently however in cases dealing with public protests they have failed to enforce the law and instead ensured that neither side in the protest or counter protest was injured. Their function is to enforce the law, not to act as witnesses so the matter can more factually be discussed at a later date. There is a comparison here with our army when they were part of the UN mission as intermediaries between two warring parties. If the parties were peaceful then everything was fine but if war or conflict broke out, our troops closed their eyes and left the scene. That was their job, although it was not useful. That is not the job of the police. They must, if possible, enforce the law at the time it is being broken.
Imagine if the police watched a home invasion happen without interfering and then later tried to identify the thieves. It sounds ridiculous but this is how
the police handle protests.
The second problem is that the police think that they are the only ones that can enforce the law and that the public is wrong to act in self defence. Thus people who act in their own defence are dragged off the prison or charged. Usually, thank goodness, they are eventually freed by the courts after much mental stress. Statistics indicate that there is less crime where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. That saves lives even though there will be instances where guns will be wrongfully used to hurt others. The real problem is the use by criminals, not by people who want to protect themselves.
Lastly the police often seem mean and foolish. They hide behind bushes to give tickets. They give tickets for driving offences that are posted, but unreasonable. They spend much of their time at construction sites, talking to the construction workers and obviously doing nothing useful. They won’t answer the simple question of “How many points will that ticket cost me?” I know it’s a tough job, but my experience with the police is that when they are on duty they are neither polite nor helpful. It’s no wonder that they are not getting the respect that they deserve and would get if they were doing their job in an efficient and friendly way.
Univeristy of Western Ontario - Israel event
University of Western Ontario should expel the students who breached the use of buildings policy. They have proven that they learned nothing of importance while university students so their academic records should also be expunged. A loss of 1 to 3 years of university work sounds to me like fair punishment for disrupting an approved activity and bringing disgrace to the university and themselves.
Damascus 2012 - NP letters to editor
Syria has no history of democracy, but one of Islamic acceptance of subjugation to Allah. That concept migrated to their politics. They want more freedom under a strong ruler, not democracy. The experiences of the Arab Spring in other Arab countries leads us to no other conclusion. The choice is not democracy, but dictatorship or Islamism in the form of a Muslim Brotherhood or Taliban type of government. I would appoint a secular benevolent dictator.
.
.
Monday, February 6, 2012
letter to Sun Feb 6th p. 28 re Iran
I agree that it is risky to attack Iran, but it is riskier not to. The lesser issue is Israel. Iran has said that it will attack Israel as soon as it has weaponry. Realistically this will of course not upset anyone in the Middle East or Europe, and it will not stop the flow of oil, but it will eliminate a line of defence for North America. Israel is also the only democracy in the middle east and a source of much new technology. We would lose that and of course all the Jewish and Christian holy places in a nucclear attack. Furthermore I don't think we want to see some 6 million Jews and 2 million Arabs slaughtered by the Iranians. To say the least, It would be politically incorrect and offensive. More importantly, Iran is waiting for the 12th imam. In preparation for his arrival Iran has said it will make the whole world Muslim. How will it do this? Obviously by war and if it has nuclear weapons, by nuclear war. We wouldn't have to worry about destabilizing the Middle East as it would be a series
of states all under Taliban or Al-Queda like governments. We wouldn't have to worry about oil because as a conquered now Muslim nation, most of our infrastructure and standard of living will have been destroyed by the war against us. The potential for harm is much greater from a nuclear armed Iran then from attacking Iran before it has nuclear weapons to use against us. Israel and America are therefore not the problem - they are the solution.
of states all under Taliban or Al-Queda like governments. We wouldn't have to worry about oil because as a conquered now Muslim nation, most of our infrastructure and standard of living will have been destroyed by the war against us. The potential for harm is much greater from a nuclear armed Iran then from attacking Iran before it has nuclear weapons to use against us. Israel and America are therefore not the problem - they are the solution.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
letter to Sun and their articles
• Between Mansur's column and Coren's column the answer to many of our problems is easy. We don't need immigration and we especially don't need immigration from Islamic countries, as those immigrants will bring with them a type of Islam or customs which are antithetical to Canadian values. It doesn't much matter if the practices and ideas of those from Islamic countries are or are not part of Islam. They are customs and values that we do not want in our country.
Immigration in the face of globalization
115
By Salim Mansur ,QMI Agency
FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2012 08:00 PM EST
In 1958, John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. senator, published a small book aptly titled A Nation of Immigrants. The world was much different then, as new states in Asia and Africa emerged, while European colonialism retreated.
The West was in the midst of a post-war economic recovery, and there was demand for low-wage workers in a growing economy.
Kennedy’s book made the case for ending quotas on immigration based on national origins. His argument was also in keeping with the Cold War politics, of denying Soviet Union influence among the newly emerging countries at the expense of the U.S. depicted as a racist society.
Two years after President Kennedy’s assassination, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The U.S., as Kennedy had called for, adopted an open immigration policy and Canada followed soon after.
Kennedy celebrated in his book how much America, in its making, owed to immigrants. He wrote, “Since 1607, when the first English settlers reached the New World, over 42 million people have migrated to the United States.
“Another way of indicating the importance of immigration to America,” Kennedy observed, “is to point out that every American who ever lived, with the exception of one group, was either an immigrant himself or a descendant of immigrants.” The exception was the aboriginal people inhabiting the continent.
The act of leaving the old world for the new, Kennedy wrote, involved breaking with the past and embracing the future as immigrants braved the immense hazards in making the journey across seas and oceans filled with uncertainties. But inside a decade of Kennedy’s writing, the arrival of wide-body transcontinental jetliners brought about a revolutionary change in the means of travel, and with it the entire meaning of immigrants and the experience of migration were altered.
Then came Pierre.
Elliott Trudeau’s multiculturalism and this policy, together with the revolutions in global transportation and communications, meant immigrants arriving since the 1970s were more or less trading places without making any break with their old world cultures and loyalties.
As a result, what Kennedy wrote about earlier generations of immigrants may not be said to the same extent for new immigrants. In the new conditions of globalization, the distinction between migrant workers and immigrants became increasingly obscure.
Many among new immigrants — given the policy of multiculturalism and the acceptance of dual or multiple citizenships — are migrant workers landed as immigrants, who draw upon the benefits of the host country while remaining attached to the customs and values of their native country.
It is politically incorrect to probe the practical reality of what has come to pass in the half-century since Kennedy pushed for open immigration, but the growing disconnect evident among newly arriving immigrants with the culture of their host country is undeniable.
These are issues that need to be discussed openly and widely. Immigration is not merely about numbers, as I indicated in my previous columns. Its effects over time inevitably change, and not necessarily for the better, the host country’s culture.
Kennedy, in looking back, celebrated the overall positive outcome of immigration. In looking ahead, we are far more aware since 9/11 of immigration’s divisively negative side.
Article by Coren – Feb 3rd 2012 – Toronto Sun
I sat last Sunday watching television with a mixture of incredulity and anger as a police inspector stood in front of a camera and explained the evils of domestic violence.
He was discussing, of course, the Shafia case and the murder of four innocent women, some of them mere girls, by their Muslim father, their Muslim mother, and their Muslim brother.
The detective meant well, I’m sure, but this had nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with honour killings.
I then watched a Kingston Islamic cleric explain how this mass murder was not about Islam, and how “people of other faiths commit such crimes.”
Do they? Well, there have been some isolated cases within the Sikh community, but the only religion that produces such slaughters in countries throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, is Islam.
Yes, of course the vast majority of Muslims would never kill or harm their children, but what does Islam actually say about the place of women within the family, the community and society?
A woman is property within the Muslim faith, first of her father, and then of her husband. Often these fathers and husbands are loving and kind, but not always. And when they are not, they are empowered by teachings of the Qur’an and by Muslim tradition to act in a horribly barbaric and oppressive manner. Look, let’s be candid here. There are Jewish people who think their children dead if they marry out of Judaism. This is rare these days, but even when it occurs, there is never any violence and certainly not death.
The same might occur with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and there can be division and pain when a Hindu or Christian young person goes astray or even marries a non-Christian or non-Hindu.
But nothing like an honour killing. This is a product of the gender power imbalance intrinsic to Islam, just as was the polygamous marriage that was the context for this family. Two wives in this case, more in many marriages in our major cities.
For God’s sake, when are we going to grasp the nettle truth and ask genuine questions?
What happens if a Muslim converts to another religion? Will they be safe, will they be tolerated? What happens if a Muslim is attracted to someone of the same gender? Forget gay marriage — that’s a viable debate — but will a Muslim be allowed freedom and safety if they are homosexual? What if a Muslim marries a Christian or a Jew, what if they critique the Qur’an?
This is not the cringe-worthy Little Mosque on the Prairie, this is not cozy fantasy, but difficult reality. You’ve read and will read myriad comments and articles splashing around in relativism and obfuscation.
You’ll hear comments about “all religions,” “all people,” Islamophobia, racism. Put it aside. You know the truth, and you know police, politicians, consensus journalists, mainstream commentators and the like are running scared.
It’s too late for that cowardly, anti-intellectual nonsense. Four dead women are crying out from the grave for the truth to be screamed from the top of the houses, from the top of the mosques!
Immigration in the face of globalization
115
By Salim Mansur ,QMI Agency
FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2012 08:00 PM EST
In 1958, John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. senator, published a small book aptly titled A Nation of Immigrants. The world was much different then, as new states in Asia and Africa emerged, while European colonialism retreated.
The West was in the midst of a post-war economic recovery, and there was demand for low-wage workers in a growing economy.
Kennedy’s book made the case for ending quotas on immigration based on national origins. His argument was also in keeping with the Cold War politics, of denying Soviet Union influence among the newly emerging countries at the expense of the U.S. depicted as a racist society.
Two years after President Kennedy’s assassination, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The U.S., as Kennedy had called for, adopted an open immigration policy and Canada followed soon after.
Kennedy celebrated in his book how much America, in its making, owed to immigrants. He wrote, “Since 1607, when the first English settlers reached the New World, over 42 million people have migrated to the United States.
“Another way of indicating the importance of immigration to America,” Kennedy observed, “is to point out that every American who ever lived, with the exception of one group, was either an immigrant himself or a descendant of immigrants.” The exception was the aboriginal people inhabiting the continent.
The act of leaving the old world for the new, Kennedy wrote, involved breaking with the past and embracing the future as immigrants braved the immense hazards in making the journey across seas and oceans filled with uncertainties. But inside a decade of Kennedy’s writing, the arrival of wide-body transcontinental jetliners brought about a revolutionary change in the means of travel, and with it the entire meaning of immigrants and the experience of migration were altered.
Then came Pierre.
Elliott Trudeau’s multiculturalism and this policy, together with the revolutions in global transportation and communications, meant immigrants arriving since the 1970s were more or less trading places without making any break with their old world cultures and loyalties.
As a result, what Kennedy wrote about earlier generations of immigrants may not be said to the same extent for new immigrants. In the new conditions of globalization, the distinction between migrant workers and immigrants became increasingly obscure.
Many among new immigrants — given the policy of multiculturalism and the acceptance of dual or multiple citizenships — are migrant workers landed as immigrants, who draw upon the benefits of the host country while remaining attached to the customs and values of their native country.
It is politically incorrect to probe the practical reality of what has come to pass in the half-century since Kennedy pushed for open immigration, but the growing disconnect evident among newly arriving immigrants with the culture of their host country is undeniable.
These are issues that need to be discussed openly and widely. Immigration is not merely about numbers, as I indicated in my previous columns. Its effects over time inevitably change, and not necessarily for the better, the host country’s culture.
Kennedy, in looking back, celebrated the overall positive outcome of immigration. In looking ahead, we are far more aware since 9/11 of immigration’s divisively negative side.
Article by Coren – Feb 3rd 2012 – Toronto Sun
I sat last Sunday watching television with a mixture of incredulity and anger as a police inspector stood in front of a camera and explained the evils of domestic violence.
He was discussing, of course, the Shafia case and the murder of four innocent women, some of them mere girls, by their Muslim father, their Muslim mother, and their Muslim brother.
The detective meant well, I’m sure, but this had nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with honour killings.
I then watched a Kingston Islamic cleric explain how this mass murder was not about Islam, and how “people of other faiths commit such crimes.”
Do they? Well, there have been some isolated cases within the Sikh community, but the only religion that produces such slaughters in countries throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, is Islam.
Yes, of course the vast majority of Muslims would never kill or harm their children, but what does Islam actually say about the place of women within the family, the community and society?
A woman is property within the Muslim faith, first of her father, and then of her husband. Often these fathers and husbands are loving and kind, but not always. And when they are not, they are empowered by teachings of the Qur’an and by Muslim tradition to act in a horribly barbaric and oppressive manner. Look, let’s be candid here. There are Jewish people who think their children dead if they marry out of Judaism. This is rare these days, but even when it occurs, there is never any violence and certainly not death.
The same might occur with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and there can be division and pain when a Hindu or Christian young person goes astray or even marries a non-Christian or non-Hindu.
But nothing like an honour killing. This is a product of the gender power imbalance intrinsic to Islam, just as was the polygamous marriage that was the context for this family. Two wives in this case, more in many marriages in our major cities.
For God’s sake, when are we going to grasp the nettle truth and ask genuine questions?
What happens if a Muslim converts to another religion? Will they be safe, will they be tolerated? What happens if a Muslim is attracted to someone of the same gender? Forget gay marriage — that’s a viable debate — but will a Muslim be allowed freedom and safety if they are homosexual? What if a Muslim marries a Christian or a Jew, what if they critique the Qur’an?
This is not the cringe-worthy Little Mosque on the Prairie, this is not cozy fantasy, but difficult reality. You’ve read and will read myriad comments and articles splashing around in relativism and obfuscation.
You’ll hear comments about “all religions,” “all people,” Islamophobia, racism. Put it aside. You know the truth, and you know police, politicians, consensus journalists, mainstream commentators and the like are running scared.
It’s too late for that cowardly, anti-intellectual nonsense. Four dead women are crying out from the grave for the truth to be screamed from the top of the houses, from the top of the mosques!
Friday, February 3, 2012
Letter to Sun re Kenneth Mark
Kenneth Mark paid the ultimate price for beyond a good citizen. He was a fine man
who ultimately brought some security to his community. Extraordinary ordinary citizens like Kenneth Mark and Sarah Burke bring honour to being Canadian and should be symbols and icons for what it means to be a Canadian. Kenneth Mark should be honoured with a statue in Queen's Park as an unique and important Torontonian and Ontarian.
who ultimately brought some security to his community. Extraordinary ordinary citizens like Kenneth Mark and Sarah Burke bring honour to being Canadian and should be symbols and icons for what it means to be a Canadian. Kenneth Mark should be honoured with a statue in Queen's Park as an unique and important Torontonian and Ontarian.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
NP - Feb 1 Gun control
Gunning for safety
I think that Ian Thomson should be given a medal for not killing the criminals
who tried to firebomb his home.Not being brave and having no patience, I would
have shot them to ensure my future safety. I have no fear of neighbours with guns.
It is criminals, crazies, and out-of-control police that have me worried.
I think that Ian Thomson should be given a medal for not killing the criminals
who tried to firebomb his home.Not being brave and having no patience, I would
have shot them to ensure my future safety. I have no fear of neighbours with guns.
It is criminals, crazies, and out-of-control police that have me worried.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Shafias - letter to the Sun - Jan 30th
Shafias and immigration
I applaud the Sun for its coverage of the Shafia trial results but there are a few
points that should have been discussed. The first is the cost. It will cost Canada
at least 1 million dollars for the trial itself and undoubtedly more for the appeals.
In addition it will cost Canada about $100,000 per year per person to keep these
three misfits in prison in Canada. The cost benefits from immigration are already being questioned.Surely only a few of these types of cases or "group of 18" cases will negate any benefits that Canada has from immigration. The next question is why we let the Shafias enter Canada at all when it seems obvious that they had no intention of assimilating or adopting any of our culture? Surely simple cultural questions by our immigration officers could have determined that Mr. and Mrs. Shafia would never adopt Canadian customs. Lastly the Sun correctly congratulated the Jury for their efforts and moral stance. It is true that the jury based their decision on Canadian values but it should not be forgotten that their values and our whole justice system is based on Judea-Christian moral values and that they have served us well and should be continued to be appreciated.
I applaud the Sun for its coverage of the Shafia trial results but there are a few
points that should have been discussed. The first is the cost. It will cost Canada
at least 1 million dollars for the trial itself and undoubtedly more for the appeals.
In addition it will cost Canada about $100,000 per year per person to keep these
three misfits in prison in Canada. The cost benefits from immigration are already being questioned.Surely only a few of these types of cases or "group of 18" cases will negate any benefits that Canada has from immigration. The next question is why we let the Shafias enter Canada at all when it seems obvious that they had no intention of assimilating or adopting any of our culture? Surely simple cultural questions by our immigration officers could have determined that Mr. and Mrs. Shafia would never adopt Canadian customs. Lastly the Sun correctly congratulated the Jury for their efforts and moral stance. It is true that the jury based their decision on Canadian values but it should not be forgotten that their values and our whole justice system is based on Judea-Christian moral values and that they have served us well and should be continued to be appreciated.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Section 13 Human Rights Commission Act
Last night, January 10th, I attended a meeting put on by the Centre for Israel
and Jewish Affairs. It was a debate on section 13 of the
Human Rights Commission. Richhard Warman favoured keeping
the section and Nathalie Desrosiers favoured eliminating it. Both
Agreed that the Human Rights Committee was important for
Purposes of teaching and monitoring human rights
The section deals with communication by telephone and internet.
Both participants were lawyers. They hardly dealt with the social
and political issues except to disagree on the impact of the legislation.
Warman said it stopped hatred and Desrosiers said it stopped free speech.
The legislation was first promulgated in the late 1940’s and the 1950’s.
They mostly discussed the meaning of hate in a legalistic way. It was
interesting but avoided the core of the problem.
1. As I see it, the legislation came out of the 50’s where hate crime was
against Jews and Blacks and other minorities. They had no outside support
They certainly did not use the HRC as a way to limit the free speech of
the majority by charging people under the laws of the HRC.
That all changed in the 2000’s with the strong pro-Muslim activision
of the Islamists. They have used it to silence any criticism of Islam.
In addition as it costs nothing to bring someone before the commission
and thousands of dollars for legal fees to participate in a hearing to defend
an accused, the odds are stacked against a defendant. All that is now
necessary to stop criticism of Islam is to accuse a person of bias
before a HRC. So the use of the HRC has changed, but the law is still in the 50’s.
The intended good result is therefore not being achieved.
The second problem is that the truth of any statement does not seem to matter.
Statements against Jews or Muslims etc are compared to see if one set of words
against one group is compatible with the same set of words against another group.
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
As you see, there is no mention here of intent or truth. Now intent would
be extremely hard to prove, but truth is the basis of our society. It cannot
be ignored. The Muslims have a concept of Taqiyya where you can lie to
benefit Islam. But Christians and Jews have no such concept. Telling the
truth in all occasions is obligatory. Now I know that that is not always done,
but that is the basis of how we live. We can’t have a law that just ignores it.
Let’s take some examples of identical statements where the terms Jew and Islamist
are interchanged. It is interesting to note that anti-Muslim statements usually refer
to Islamists or fundamentalist Muslims or Islam whereas statements against Jews
do not distinguish between fundamentalist and moderate ones. They are all bunched
together.
Let us suppose that 2 sets of statements come before the HRC. The wording will
be the same, except for the name of the targeted group.
1. Jews oppress their women. Muslims oppress their women.
When ignoring the truth of either of these statements it appears that
hate crimes have been committed. Yet some will believe
the first statement is true and the latter is false and some will
believe the reverse. Under section 13 both statements would be
hate crimes even though most of us would believe that the first
is false and the second is true or at least more true. Jews are not
permitted to hit their wives, and they don’t have honour killings
or female circumcision. Obviously if both statements were being
subject to prosecution there would be gross unfairness in the result.
2.Jews want to take over North America. Islamists want to take
over North America. Again, the same problem exists as in
the first example. Gross unfairness results depending on the
truth of the facts and the belief system of the interrogator.
Conclusion: Section 13 is not effective in what it is trying to do because
1. It is a 60 year old law and social circumstances have changed
2. The law’s use has changed from defensive to offensive
3. The cost to the defendant is prohibitive.
4. Ignoring the truth of statements leads to unfairness.
5. Truth is often incorrectly considered to be relative and
may be subjective.
6. Because there is no adequate judicial process, the act
would be better handled under the Criminal Law.
and Jewish Affairs. It was a debate on section 13 of the
Human Rights Commission. Richhard Warman favoured keeping
the section and Nathalie Desrosiers favoured eliminating it. Both
Agreed that the Human Rights Committee was important for
Purposes of teaching and monitoring human rights
The section deals with communication by telephone and internet.
Both participants were lawyers. They hardly dealt with the social
and political issues except to disagree on the impact of the legislation.
Warman said it stopped hatred and Desrosiers said it stopped free speech.
The legislation was first promulgated in the late 1940’s and the 1950’s.
They mostly discussed the meaning of hate in a legalistic way. It was
interesting but avoided the core of the problem.
1. As I see it, the legislation came out of the 50’s where hate crime was
against Jews and Blacks and other minorities. They had no outside support
They certainly did not use the HRC as a way to limit the free speech of
the majority by charging people under the laws of the HRC.
That all changed in the 2000’s with the strong pro-Muslim activision
of the Islamists. They have used it to silence any criticism of Islam.
In addition as it costs nothing to bring someone before the commission
and thousands of dollars for legal fees to participate in a hearing to defend
an accused, the odds are stacked against a defendant. All that is now
necessary to stop criticism of Islam is to accuse a person of bias
before a HRC. So the use of the HRC has changed, but the law is still in the 50’s.
The intended good result is therefore not being achieved.
The second problem is that the truth of any statement does not seem to matter.
Statements against Jews or Muslims etc are compared to see if one set of words
against one group is compatible with the same set of words against another group.
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
As you see, there is no mention here of intent or truth. Now intent would
be extremely hard to prove, but truth is the basis of our society. It cannot
be ignored. The Muslims have a concept of Taqiyya where you can lie to
benefit Islam. But Christians and Jews have no such concept. Telling the
truth in all occasions is obligatory. Now I know that that is not always done,
but that is the basis of how we live. We can’t have a law that just ignores it.
Let’s take some examples of identical statements where the terms Jew and Islamist
are interchanged. It is interesting to note that anti-Muslim statements usually refer
to Islamists or fundamentalist Muslims or Islam whereas statements against Jews
do not distinguish between fundamentalist and moderate ones. They are all bunched
together.
Let us suppose that 2 sets of statements come before the HRC. The wording will
be the same, except for the name of the targeted group.
1. Jews oppress their women. Muslims oppress their women.
When ignoring the truth of either of these statements it appears that
hate crimes have been committed. Yet some will believe
the first statement is true and the latter is false and some will
believe the reverse. Under section 13 both statements would be
hate crimes even though most of us would believe that the first
is false and the second is true or at least more true. Jews are not
permitted to hit their wives, and they don’t have honour killings
or female circumcision. Obviously if both statements were being
subject to prosecution there would be gross unfairness in the result.
2.Jews want to take over North America. Islamists want to take
over North America. Again, the same problem exists as in
the first example. Gross unfairness results depending on the
truth of the facts and the belief system of the interrogator.
Conclusion: Section 13 is not effective in what it is trying to do because
1. It is a 60 year old law and social circumstances have changed
2. The law’s use has changed from defensive to offensive
3. The cost to the defendant is prohibitive.
4. Ignoring the truth of statements leads to unfairness.
5. Truth is often incorrectly considered to be relative and
may be subjective.
6. Because there is no adequate judicial process, the act
would be better handled under the Criminal Law.
ethical oil - Simpson = Globe and Mail Jan 11/12
I looked at Simpson's article and was not impressed. Firstly, he is always anti-Harper and takes
any chance he has to criticize him. However that is not the immediate question. Is he right? For a long
time Harper has been pushing ethical Canadian oil as opposed to Saudi unethical oil. I support that. As Simpson
says (in his holier than thou position) the Harper government did try to influence the U.S. government to
buy its products. It will do the same thing with China next month. That is a long way away from other governments,
in particular Saudi Arabia and perhaps Soros, funding U.S. and Canadian environmental groups to try to prohibit
the production and sale of Canadian oil in any way possible including by lengthening the American and
Canadian judicial processes of environmental review . So yes, Simpson can complain that Harper's sales efforts
are too strong but theyare not equivalent to financial support to our environmental groups by unknown financial sources.
So no, I don't think that "Foreign money' is a hypocritical diversion. I think it is a realistic problem and
I am glad that Harper is facing and combatting it because I don't want to see a five year assessment that
would essentially destroy Canada's benefit from the oil sands while allowing the Saudis to earn millions
of dollars to support the ideology of jihad and Islamism throughout the world.
any chance he has to criticize him. However that is not the immediate question. Is he right? For a long
time Harper has been pushing ethical Canadian oil as opposed to Saudi unethical oil. I support that. As Simpson
says (in his holier than thou position) the Harper government did try to influence the U.S. government to
buy its products. It will do the same thing with China next month. That is a long way away from other governments,
in particular Saudi Arabia and perhaps Soros, funding U.S. and Canadian environmental groups to try to prohibit
the production and sale of Canadian oil in any way possible including by lengthening the American and
Canadian judicial processes of environmental review . So yes, Simpson can complain that Harper's sales efforts
are too strong but theyare not equivalent to financial support to our environmental groups by unknown financial sources.
So no, I don't think that "Foreign money' is a hypocritical diversion. I think it is a realistic problem and
I am glad that Harper is facing and combatting it because I don't want to see a five year assessment that
would essentially destroy Canada's benefit from the oil sands while allowing the Saudis to earn millions
of dollars to support the ideology of jihad and Islamism throughout the world.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
My letter in National Post Jan 7th
Why I write letters to the editor
The real reason I write is because letters editor Paul Russel gives my
words consideration, whereas none of my family, relatives or friends
listens to or considers anything whatsoever that I have to say. Of course,
at my age, if they did, I couldn't hear them anyway.
The real reason I write is because letters editor Paul Russel gives my
words consideration, whereas none of my family, relatives or friends
listens to or considers anything whatsoever that I have to say. Of course,
at my age, if they did, I couldn't hear them anyway.
Letter to National Post Jan 7th
Do Canadians really want to go to war with Iran?
Of course Harper and Canadians don't want to go to war with Iran. But then again,
Chamberland and England didn't want to go to war with Germany before the blitz; Roosevelt and the U.S. didn't want to go to war against Japan before Pearl Harbor;
and Bush and the U.S. didn't want to go to war against Al-Queda before 9/11.
How long should we wait before recognizing that Iran is a dangerous enemy?
Of course Harper and Canadians don't want to go to war with Iran. But then again,
Chamberland and England didn't want to go to war with Germany before the blitz; Roosevelt and the U.S. didn't want to go to war against Japan before Pearl Harbor;
and Bush and the U.S. didn't want to go to war against Al-Queda before 9/11.
How long should we wait before recognizing that Iran is a dangerous enemy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)