...On L'affaire Ghomeshi, Israel, and Jesse Brown being Jewish:
You would think that someone who has had guests withdraw from his podcast because of Wosnock retweeting anti-Semitic remarks (on Christmas Day 2013, of all days) would be more careful.
But then you'd have never dealt with the intellectual trainwreck that is Glen (@CanadianGlen) Wosnock.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Why PM Harper Deserves Consideration for Nobel Peace Prize
Previously on Bad Company, I took the signatories to a petition demanding that the Nobel Peace Prize committee reject Prime Minister Stephen Harper's nomination out to the woodshed. They didn't like it.
Not one of them substantively answered the criticisms contained in that blogpost. The reason for this is obvious: it's because they can't.
And of course they can't. The only reason to demand that the NPP committee circumvent the process of considering nominations made to it is that they're deathly afraid that Harper will get serious consideration, if not the award itself. Personally, I expect that Prime Minister Harper will get serious consideration, although I don't necessarily expect he'll win the prize.
I don't disagree with Frank Dimant that Harper has shown remarkable, even unique, moral clarity on the issue of Israel. Unlike those who signed this ridiculous petition, Prime Minister Harper knows were the blame for the conflict, and for civilian deaths in Gaza, belongs: on Hamas. They, who go out of their way to start armed conflict with Israel, then put their civilians in harm's way.
That being said, that's not the reason I think Harper warrants serious consideration for the award.
The reason in my mind is the maternal health initiative Harper has championed on the global stage. It was once said that mother is the name of God on the lips of a child. Prime Minister Harper is well aware that when you take steps to improve the health of mothers and their children you take a vital step toward alleviating health crises in the developing world.
Now I'm certain that many signatories to the "deny Harper" petition will object strenuously. Their idea of "maternal health" seems to be funding abortions in countries where the procedure is often contrary to law. Harper has wisely defied them by refusing to fund abortions as part of the MHI. This is another reason why he should be considered.
I'm not holding my breath for Prime Minister Harper to win the prize based on this achievement. If helping to stem the devastation wrought by AIDS in Africa wasn't enough to win President George W Bush the Peace Prize -- and having accomplished nothing was enough to win President Barack Obama the prize -- the Maternal Health Initiative likely won't secure it for Harper.
And that's OK, so long as the award goes to a more deserving nominee. I'm entirely open to that possibility. I'll be waiting... and watching... to see who ends up winning.
Not one of them substantively answered the criticisms contained in that blogpost. The reason for this is obvious: it's because they can't.
And of course they can't. The only reason to demand that the NPP committee circumvent the process of considering nominations made to it is that they're deathly afraid that Harper will get serious consideration, if not the award itself. Personally, I expect that Prime Minister Harper will get serious consideration, although I don't necessarily expect he'll win the prize.
I don't disagree with Frank Dimant that Harper has shown remarkable, even unique, moral clarity on the issue of Israel. Unlike those who signed this ridiculous petition, Prime Minister Harper knows were the blame for the conflict, and for civilian deaths in Gaza, belongs: on Hamas. They, who go out of their way to start armed conflict with Israel, then put their civilians in harm's way.
That being said, that's not the reason I think Harper warrants serious consideration for the award.
The reason in my mind is the maternal health initiative Harper has championed on the global stage. It was once said that mother is the name of God on the lips of a child. Prime Minister Harper is well aware that when you take steps to improve the health of mothers and their children you take a vital step toward alleviating health crises in the developing world.
Now I'm certain that many signatories to the "deny Harper" petition will object strenuously. Their idea of "maternal health" seems to be funding abortions in countries where the procedure is often contrary to law. Harper has wisely defied them by refusing to fund abortions as part of the MHI. This is another reason why he should be considered.
I'm not holding my breath for Prime Minister Harper to win the prize based on this achievement. If helping to stem the devastation wrought by AIDS in Africa wasn't enough to win President George W Bush the Peace Prize -- and having accomplished nothing was enough to win President Barack Obama the prize -- the Maternal Health Initiative likely won't secure it for Harper.
And that's OK, so long as the award goes to a more deserving nominee. I'm entirely open to that possibility. I'll be waiting... and watching... to see who ends up winning.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Anti-Harper Petition an Exercise in Intellectual Cowardice
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and the far-left desn't like it.
Front and centre in the increasingly-public spectacle of the far-left losing their minds over it is a petition started by Calgarian Liberal hack Ed Tanas. Tanas was so outraged by the nomination, by Frank Dimant of B'Nai Brith, that he was driven to anti-Semitic comments.
I've spent some time slowly peeling back the layers of Tanas' mania at High Noon. He's not an individual bursting with credibility. So not much has to be said about he himself here.
But I will speak at further length about his petition, and just how, frankly, cowardly an effort it really is.
As explored masterfully by the Calgary Herald's Susan Martinuk, almost none of the 20,00 unhinged signatories have produced even a single valid reason why Harper's nomination should be denied:
"The real drivers behind any support for the petition can easily be detected in the comments made by its supporters. Most are a nebulous collection of hateful phrases that have no facts or logic to support their claims. According to them, Harper has 'committed crimes against Canadians' and has 'beady eyes.' He is also 'a disgrace to mankind,' 'a warmonger,' 'evil' 'an oppressor,' 'a fascist' and a 'social monster' who should be charged with 'treason.'
Frankly, these people should spend a year or two living under the rule of a Third World dictator. Maybe then they can comprehend the real meaning of such words.
Comments that state reasons (still not facts or statistics) invariably focus on Harper’s unwavering support for Israel, the 'evil, mass-murderer that kills innocent children.' A few others mention unexplained reasons such as aboriginal policies and dismantling Canada’s health-care system."
So more or less all of it is generic left-wing rhetoric, and absolutely none of it is true,... save that Harper does, in fact, support Israel. Although what the signatories say about Israel is false. Which makes that a wash.
Now here's the thing: signing this petition is an act of intellectual cowardice.
If they were true, the reasons cited by the signatories would indeed be damning of Harper's nomination. There's no question whatsoever about that. If the Nobel committee found these things to be true, there's no way Harper would be considered seriously for the award.
So if the signatories really had any confidence whatsoever that the things they say are true, they would have no objection to the Nobel committee considering Harper's nomination. By attempting an end-run around the evaluation process by petitioning the committee to reject the nomination out-of-hand, they're instead demonstrating that they have no confidence in the things they say; that they are aware that the things they say are untrue, and simply expect the nomination committee to accept them unquestioningly.
This is not to say that if the Peace Prize is awarded to someone other than Harper that what these nutjobs say about Harper is true, merely that there was a more deserving candidate. Which is, frankly, how these awards should be awarded.
There is a pro-Harper petition as well. It hasn't been circulating for as long as the anti-Harper petition, but if you believe the Nobel Peace Prize committee should consider Harper''s nomination, you could do worse than to sign it.
Front and centre in the increasingly-public spectacle of the far-left losing their minds over it is a petition started by Calgarian Liberal hack Ed Tanas. Tanas was so outraged by the nomination, by Frank Dimant of B'Nai Brith, that he was driven to anti-Semitic comments.
I've spent some time slowly peeling back the layers of Tanas' mania at High Noon. He's not an individual bursting with credibility. So not much has to be said about he himself here.
But I will speak at further length about his petition, and just how, frankly, cowardly an effort it really is.
As explored masterfully by the Calgary Herald's Susan Martinuk, almost none of the 20,00 unhinged signatories have produced even a single valid reason why Harper's nomination should be denied:
"The real drivers behind any support for the petition can easily be detected in the comments made by its supporters. Most are a nebulous collection of hateful phrases that have no facts or logic to support their claims. According to them, Harper has 'committed crimes against Canadians' and has 'beady eyes.' He is also 'a disgrace to mankind,' 'a warmonger,' 'evil' 'an oppressor,' 'a fascist' and a 'social monster' who should be charged with 'treason.'
Frankly, these people should spend a year or two living under the rule of a Third World dictator. Maybe then they can comprehend the real meaning of such words.
Comments that state reasons (still not facts or statistics) invariably focus on Harper’s unwavering support for Israel, the 'evil, mass-murderer that kills innocent children.' A few others mention unexplained reasons such as aboriginal policies and dismantling Canada’s health-care system."
So more or less all of it is generic left-wing rhetoric, and absolutely none of it is true,... save that Harper does, in fact, support Israel. Although what the signatories say about Israel is false. Which makes that a wash.
Now here's the thing: signing this petition is an act of intellectual cowardice.
If they were true, the reasons cited by the signatories would indeed be damning of Harper's nomination. There's no question whatsoever about that. If the Nobel committee found these things to be true, there's no way Harper would be considered seriously for the award.
So if the signatories really had any confidence whatsoever that the things they say are true, they would have no objection to the Nobel committee considering Harper's nomination. By attempting an end-run around the evaluation process by petitioning the committee to reject the nomination out-of-hand, they're instead demonstrating that they have no confidence in the things they say; that they are aware that the things they say are untrue, and simply expect the nomination committee to accept them unquestioningly.
This is not to say that if the Peace Prize is awarded to someone other than Harper that what these nutjobs say about Harper is true, merely that there was a more deserving candidate. Which is, frankly, how these awards should be awarded.
There is a pro-Harper petition as well. It hasn't been circulating for as long as the anti-Harper petition, but if you believe the Nobel Peace Prize committee should consider Harper''s nomination, you could do worse than to sign it.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Hamas: the Death Cult in Charge of Gaza
Well, Israel-haters and Hamas-boosters, the jig is up: the evidence is in. There is no question now that Hamas fires its rockets from amidst densely-populated civilian areas.
The first concrete, indisputable evidence arrived via France 24:
The sight of Palestinian children playing around Hamas rocket silos is one that will likely horrify me to my dying day.
The sight of a Hamas rocket silo with a UN flag fluttering atop a building less than 100 feet away is one that will remain emblematic of the brazenness of Hamas and the utter failure of the UN to stand up to this cowardice for decades to come.
Not long after a crew from India's NDTV captured, on video, a Hamas crew planting, concealing and then firing rocket from a vacant lot immediately adjacent to hotels and apartment buildings: In both of these cases, these silos were rigged with remote-fire capability. In other words, the Hamas militants who planted those launchers then high-tailed it to safety, leaving the civilians in the aforementioned hotels and apartment buildings to be blown to pieces by any Israeli counter-strike.
Today, this got me thinking: in particular, about the idea that Hamas uses human shields. While these incidents may seem to confirm that, it's occurred to me that perhaps it isn't true after all.
Consider the very idea of what a human shield is: a human body used to cover an aggressor from fire; from behind which an aggressor may attack, but may not be attacked without harming the person being used as a human shield.
It may seem to fit the situation in Gaza, but here's the thing: when Israel counter-attacks, the militants who launched the initial attack are long gone. Hamas has obviously long accepted that firing a rocket from densely-populated areas is not guaranteed to deter Israel from counter-attack. So now they hide far away and fire these weapons from a safe distance. The civilians in the densely-populated areas are simply hung out to dry while the terrorists themselves are in no real danger. By design these terrorists endanger these civilians, deliberately getting them killed while they themselves are seldom in any real danger.
That is why it has occurred to me: the civilians being killed when Israel destroys a Hamas rocket silo aren't human shields. They're human sacrifices. Quite literally.
This is the peril of an ideology that teaches that "martyrdom" brings with it rewards in the afterlife, so death is actually to be welcomed. Now, Hamas militants are no longer content to seek martyrdom for themselves: they're perfectly content to martyr civilians against their will, and without their consent.
They aren't used to protect rocket silos. They're no longer meant to. Now they're merely sacrificed. And sacrificed because it serves the purposes of Hamas and their de facto allies among the anti-Israel movement. Hamas gets to commit an increasingly (although not yet entirely) futile act of aggression against Israel. The Israel-haters get collateral porn to slather across the internet. Apparently every one wins so long as innocent Palestinians lose their lives.
Well, enough is enough. Hamas must be destroyed to the last man. This grisly and opportunistic practice of human sacrifice cannot be permitted to continue.
The first concrete, indisputable evidence arrived via France 24:
The sight of Palestinian children playing around Hamas rocket silos is one that will likely horrify me to my dying day.
The sight of a Hamas rocket silo with a UN flag fluttering atop a building less than 100 feet away is one that will remain emblematic of the brazenness of Hamas and the utter failure of the UN to stand up to this cowardice for decades to come.
Not long after a crew from India's NDTV captured, on video, a Hamas crew planting, concealing and then firing rocket from a vacant lot immediately adjacent to hotels and apartment buildings: In both of these cases, these silos were rigged with remote-fire capability. In other words, the Hamas militants who planted those launchers then high-tailed it to safety, leaving the civilians in the aforementioned hotels and apartment buildings to be blown to pieces by any Israeli counter-strike.
Today, this got me thinking: in particular, about the idea that Hamas uses human shields. While these incidents may seem to confirm that, it's occurred to me that perhaps it isn't true after all.
Consider the very idea of what a human shield is: a human body used to cover an aggressor from fire; from behind which an aggressor may attack, but may not be attacked without harming the person being used as a human shield.
It may seem to fit the situation in Gaza, but here's the thing: when Israel counter-attacks, the militants who launched the initial attack are long gone. Hamas has obviously long accepted that firing a rocket from densely-populated areas is not guaranteed to deter Israel from counter-attack. So now they hide far away and fire these weapons from a safe distance. The civilians in the densely-populated areas are simply hung out to dry while the terrorists themselves are in no real danger. By design these terrorists endanger these civilians, deliberately getting them killed while they themselves are seldom in any real danger.
That is why it has occurred to me: the civilians being killed when Israel destroys a Hamas rocket silo aren't human shields. They're human sacrifices. Quite literally.
This is the peril of an ideology that teaches that "martyrdom" brings with it rewards in the afterlife, so death is actually to be welcomed. Now, Hamas militants are no longer content to seek martyrdom for themselves: they're perfectly content to martyr civilians against their will, and without their consent.
They aren't used to protect rocket silos. They're no longer meant to. Now they're merely sacrificed. And sacrificed because it serves the purposes of Hamas and their de facto allies among the anti-Israel movement. Hamas gets to commit an increasingly (although not yet entirely) futile act of aggression against Israel. The Israel-haters get collateral porn to slather across the internet. Apparently every one wins so long as innocent Palestinians lose their lives.
Well, enough is enough. Hamas must be destroyed to the last man. This grisly and opportunistic practice of human sacrifice cannot be permitted to continue.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
"Illegal Israeli Settlements" and the Right of Return
With Israel pounding Hamas back into the wormholes they crawled out of, the far-left's opposition to Israel -- which they themselves insist is merely support of the Palestinian people -- has put them in quite the moral, ethical and ideological quandary.
They insist that they oppose the oppression of the Palestinian people. Yet they remain utterly silent on the true oppressor of the Palestinian people: Hamas. They insist that it's justified for Hamas to attack Israel; they ignore the fact that Hamas invariably strikes first.
But even they have no idea just how deep their quandary goes.
The far-left fervently believe in anti-colonialism. Anti-colonialism can most simply be described as follows: it is ethically and morally wrong for any country or nation to conquer another's lands and then drive them out by force. Any people subjected to such an offense should be afforded the right to return to their lands. It doesn't matter how long ago this happened.
This is the anti-colonial twist on the right of return. As it appears in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
As a general principle of international law, this is generally considered to apply largely to individuals. The anti-colonial left sees it rather differently: they believe that it applies to entire nations.
I don't necessarily disagree. (More on that shortly.)
Where I do disagree with them is on the hypocritical manner in which they insist upon applying this particular principle. Simply put, that it applies only to groups to whom they favour, and so it does not apply to the Israelis.
If you take the anti-colonial left at their word, if there's anyone this principle, as they interpret it, does apply to it's the Israelis. They were forced out of their lands in Biblical times via ethnic cleansing and since the Israelis returned to their land in the late 1940s their Arab neighbours continually attempted to ethnically cleanse the land once again -- this time via genocide. When that failed each Arab country dropped away and in time made their own peace with Israel. They utterly abandoned the Palestinians, whom they themselves had previously oppressed. (No Arab objected when the Egyptians or even the Ottomans occupied Palestinian lands.)
Now, Hamas -- whose brutal oppression of the Palestinian people seems to find so little place in the minds of the anti-colonial left -- attempts to ethnically cleanse the land of the Israelis, despite that it is simply not in their power to do so. When Israel defends itself, as is its right, Palestinian civilians are among the collateral damage. (No one is happy about this, aside from Hamas, who are ecstatic about it.)
It's not Hamas' right to ethnically cleanse Israel. Nor is it their right to deny Israelis their right of return, and especially not if Israelis return as they did -- with the intention to share the land with its then-occupiers.
Palestinian leadership, for their part, did not share those intentions. They opposed mass Jewish immigration to the region, and insisted they would kill the Israelis if they returned. Fearing such bloodshed, the British (who took over administration of the region from the Ottmans after World War I) attempted to impede the return of the Israelis. But even with the British attempting to do the heavy lifting, the Palestinian leaders of the day failed in their bid to keep their lands "pure."
So instead of resigning themselves to sharing these lands instead they retreated into slums and waged war against those who all along would have much preferred to be their peaceful neighbours.
The perverse thing about it is that most Israelis would happily share their lands still. Arab Israelis, including those of Palestinian descent, have expressed an astonishing level of appreciation for the rights -- inherent as a matter of natural law -- protected by their Israeli citizenship. Nearly 90% declare they'd rather be an Israeli citizen than a citizen of any other country in the world, Arab countries included.
Palestinians could share in that satisfaction, and they wouldn't even have to become Israeli citizens to do it. All they'd have to do is elect a government committed to restoring and protecting their freedoms, and living in a negotiated peace with Israel.
The sooner the so-called anti-colonial left find it in themselves to stop rhetorically propping up the foolish war-mongers of Hamas and the sooner they recognize that Israel's right to exist is rooted in the Israeli's right of return, the easier it will be for the Israelis and Palestinians to make a lasting peace.
They insist that they oppose the oppression of the Palestinian people. Yet they remain utterly silent on the true oppressor of the Palestinian people: Hamas. They insist that it's justified for Hamas to attack Israel; they ignore the fact that Hamas invariably strikes first.
But even they have no idea just how deep their quandary goes.
The far-left fervently believe in anti-colonialism. Anti-colonialism can most simply be described as follows: it is ethically and morally wrong for any country or nation to conquer another's lands and then drive them out by force. Any people subjected to such an offense should be afforded the right to return to their lands. It doesn't matter how long ago this happened.
This is the anti-colonial twist on the right of return. As it appears in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
As a general principle of international law, this is generally considered to apply largely to individuals. The anti-colonial left sees it rather differently: they believe that it applies to entire nations.
I don't necessarily disagree. (More on that shortly.)
Where I do disagree with them is on the hypocritical manner in which they insist upon applying this particular principle. Simply put, that it applies only to groups to whom they favour, and so it does not apply to the Israelis.
If you take the anti-colonial left at their word, if there's anyone this principle, as they interpret it, does apply to it's the Israelis. They were forced out of their lands in Biblical times via ethnic cleansing and since the Israelis returned to their land in the late 1940s their Arab neighbours continually attempted to ethnically cleanse the land once again -- this time via genocide. When that failed each Arab country dropped away and in time made their own peace with Israel. They utterly abandoned the Palestinians, whom they themselves had previously oppressed. (No Arab objected when the Egyptians or even the Ottomans occupied Palestinian lands.)
Now, Hamas -- whose brutal oppression of the Palestinian people seems to find so little place in the minds of the anti-colonial left -- attempts to ethnically cleanse the land of the Israelis, despite that it is simply not in their power to do so. When Israel defends itself, as is its right, Palestinian civilians are among the collateral damage. (No one is happy about this, aside from Hamas, who are ecstatic about it.)
It's not Hamas' right to ethnically cleanse Israel. Nor is it their right to deny Israelis their right of return, and especially not if Israelis return as they did -- with the intention to share the land with its then-occupiers.
Palestinian leadership, for their part, did not share those intentions. They opposed mass Jewish immigration to the region, and insisted they would kill the Israelis if they returned. Fearing such bloodshed, the British (who took over administration of the region from the Ottmans after World War I) attempted to impede the return of the Israelis. But even with the British attempting to do the heavy lifting, the Palestinian leaders of the day failed in their bid to keep their lands "pure."
So instead of resigning themselves to sharing these lands instead they retreated into slums and waged war against those who all along would have much preferred to be their peaceful neighbours.
The perverse thing about it is that most Israelis would happily share their lands still. Arab Israelis, including those of Palestinian descent, have expressed an astonishing level of appreciation for the rights -- inherent as a matter of natural law -- protected by their Israeli citizenship. Nearly 90% declare they'd rather be an Israeli citizen than a citizen of any other country in the world, Arab countries included.
Palestinians could share in that satisfaction, and they wouldn't even have to become Israeli citizens to do it. All they'd have to do is elect a government committed to restoring and protecting their freedoms, and living in a negotiated peace with Israel.
The sooner the so-called anti-colonial left find it in themselves to stop rhetorically propping up the foolish war-mongers of Hamas and the sooner they recognize that Israel's right to exist is rooted in the Israeli's right of return, the easier it will be for the Israelis and Palestinians to make a lasting peace.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Oh Good Lord, Thomas Mulcair, You Have GOT to be Kidding
Mulcair pretending his caucus isn't anti-Israel
NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is a man with a problem. Many problems, actually. But far too many of them are entirely self-created, and they're piling up.
His most recent problem? His caucus is virulently anti-Israel. But he wants to pretend that it isn't.
"I firmly reject any such affirmation with regards to our caucus," Mulcair recently insisted.
But once again -- as so many times before -- Mulcair is banking on the idea that Canadians just haven't been paying any attention.
The most obvious problem with Mulcair's denial of the anti-Israel bias bubbling in the very soul of his party's caucus is that of his deputy leader, Vancouver East MP Libby Davies. Davies has become infamous for a series of bizarre statements about Israel, including referring to it as the longest military occupation in history.
(The people of Kurdistan, for just one example, may beg to differ with that.)
It shouldn't be believed that Mulcair hasn't tried. He hasn't tried very hard, but he has tried. He has enough problems within his own caucus and the greater far-left community over support from "the Israel lobby" in his leadership campaign.
The anti-Israel lobby wasn't a problem for the NDP when they were in opposition and had no chance of governing. In fact, it was a reliable source of cheap and easy political support. But now that the NDP are contending for government, they no longer enjoy the convenience of appealing for cheap and easy political support by appealing to the far-left fringe.
Mulcair isn't fooling anybody. His caucus is virulently anti-Israel. If he wants his party to be considered fit to govern, he's going to need to do something about it.
NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is a man with a problem. Many problems, actually. But far too many of them are entirely self-created, and they're piling up.
His most recent problem? His caucus is virulently anti-Israel. But he wants to pretend that it isn't.
"I firmly reject any such affirmation with regards to our caucus," Mulcair recently insisted.
But once again -- as so many times before -- Mulcair is banking on the idea that Canadians just haven't been paying any attention.
The most obvious problem with Mulcair's denial of the anti-Israel bias bubbling in the very soul of his party's caucus is that of his deputy leader, Vancouver East MP Libby Davies. Davies has become infamous for a series of bizarre statements about Israel, including referring to it as the longest military occupation in history.
(The people of Kurdistan, for just one example, may beg to differ with that.)
It shouldn't be believed that Mulcair hasn't tried. He hasn't tried very hard, but he has tried. He has enough problems within his own caucus and the greater far-left community over support from "the Israel lobby" in his leadership campaign.
The anti-Israel lobby wasn't a problem for the NDP when they were in opposition and had no chance of governing. In fact, it was a reliable source of cheap and easy political support. But now that the NDP are contending for government, they no longer enjoy the convenience of appealing for cheap and easy political support by appealing to the far-left fringe.
Mulcair isn't fooling anybody. His caucus is virulently anti-Israel. If he wants his party to be considered fit to govern, he's going to need to do something about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)