start your own blog now!
 
Read other blogs...

scaramouche

...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.

Monday, 31 July 2006

 

Losing the war: Whether or not it turns out that some of the photos from Qana have been deliberately staged for the benefit of gullible and easily manipulated Western media outlets, one thing is eminently clear: There is no way Israel can win this P.R. war. Israel’s enemies have become so adept at pushing the “Arabs are the victims, Israel is the brutal aggressor” line—first in the Palestinians territories and now in Lebanon, that truth and reality no longer matter; indeed, they seem quaint relics of a time long past. What matters is that the media and a large portion of the world, including the EU (which sold its soul to become part of larger Eurabia) and the Muslim-enthralled U.N. are predisposed to think ill of Israel—even if it’s fighting for its life against avowed genocidal fascists who are deranged religious fanatics sponsored by a genocidal fascist Shia republic, and even if these genocidal Shia fascists have cynically put people, including women and children, in harm’s way. Hezbollah uses kiddies as human shields? Ho hum. Israel fights back and, in the course of doing so kills some of the kiddies Hezbollah is cynically using as juvenile cannon fodder? Apologies from Israel. Howls of outrage from all quarters. Human rights organizations slamming Israel for war crimes. Sob stories by Mark MacKinnon. Und so weiter. (See, who says High School German doesn’t come in handy sometimes?)

 

In fact, there is really only one way for Israel to win the P.R. war: by losing the war. By lying down and allowing the jihad juggernaut to roll over it. By permitting the Islamic Nazis to do the Jews of Israel what the Nazis did to the Jews of Europe—that is, to turn them into ashes.

 

The hell with that. This time around, the Jews won’t even be able to count on the world’s crocodile tears and monuments to those murdered. This time around (God forbid) the world will say the Jews of Israel had it coming, because of all the nasty things they did to those nice Palestinians, to those helpless, innocent Lebanese.

 

Even with the jihad raging all over the world, and even with the threat it poses to civilization as a whole, that’s the only narrative the mainstream media and most people seem willing to accept.

 

How to account for this wilful blindness, a calamitous failing that may well spell our doom? My mother always used to tell me to not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. In this instance at least, I’d say both malice AND stupidity (along with a heaping helping of Jew-hatred, a dementia known to corrode the grey matter--just look at Mel) are to blame.

 

Update: Mark Steyn on today’s naked Jew-hatred, which is manifested as naked hatred for the Jewish state:

One of the curious side-effects of the jihad is that it’s liberated among non-Muslims in the west an amazing resurgence in old-school Jew-hatred. I don’t just mean the coded stuff – “Oh, those Jews are so clever” – or the casual prejudices of the schoolyard – “He Jewed me out of two shillings for a Mars Bar” -  but just plain naked virulent hatred. Right now I’m getting a ton of mail like this:

Israelis are the pigs of planet earth: butchering Arab babies, polluting the sea, the land, and the very air we breathe with the the stench of their inhumanity. Israel is a collection of the scum of earth and should be destroyed.

That’s from Nica Campbell, and her opening sentences are only the warm-up. For centuries, Jews were viewed as sinister wandering rootless cosmopolitan figures of no national allegiance. So they became a conventional sovereign state and now they’re hated for that. The standard defense is that it’s not anti-Semitic to criticize Israeli policies, but, as Miss Campbell’s letter suggests, what’s being questioned is not Israel’s policies but the right of Israel to have policies, especially on national security. If, say, some fellows in Mexico had kidnapped California State Troopers and were lobbing rockets randomly into residential areas of San Diego and Los Angeles, even La-La-Land libs would be demanding the US respond. It’s only the Israelis the world wishes to deny the conventional rights of sovereignty. In other words, it’s the legitimacy of the state that’s at issue. In effect, Israel has become the geopolitical version of the European Jew who’s allowed to operate a store in the town but not to exercise full ownership rights: in the old days, Jews faced property restrictions; now they face sovereignty restrictions…

 

Update: Truer words were never spoken: These days, only terrorists are allowed to wage war. From the Conservative Voice:

…The conflicts begun by both Hezbollah and Hamas started with invasions of Israel, the killing of Israeli soldiers, kidnappings of other Israeli soldiers—followed by immediate rocket launches (from both entities) into Israel. Certainly sounds coordinated to me. But, it is Israel who is condemned by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for killing ostensible civilians in Qana. People die in war. That’s why the phrase “war is hell” came into being. But, when one’s country is attacked, there is only one option for survival—fight back. Israel, however, is being condemned for fighting back in any way that might actually destroy the terrorist organizations that started the conflict in the first place.

It is clear that the increasingly useless United Nations does not want terrorist organizations to be destroyed. It actually wants to send “diplomatic envoys” to “discuss the situation” with these terrorist bodies. And the UN expects, nee demands that the civilized world agree to its madness. The predominant reason the UN has used is that
Israel is employing “disproportionate force” against the terrorists. Should Israel be throwing rocks at Hezbollah and Hamas? The UN apparently thinks so.

There is no disproportionate force in existence, when fighting for survival against enemies who have vowed to wipe you and your country from the map—as
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has commanded. There is no disproportionate force in existence, when fighting against enemies who purposefully target civilians. There is no disproportionate force that exists or that will ever exist, when people are fighting for their lives and the lives of their families and loved ones—against enemies who are hell-bent upon killing them. There are, also, few-to-no diplomatic channels that can be employed against pure and unadulterated evil; an evil that is determined to destroy you and your seed—forever. But, it seems that the UN and the leftist world press has a solution. In their ever-quickening attempts toward suicide, they have decided that the victims of violence should be hamstrung. And they have decreed that the Islamo-fascist perpetrators of said violence and avowed-genocide should be rewarded.

The bottom line? Only the terrorists should be allowed to fight. Yeah. That should do it!

posted by: scaramouche at 21:03 | link | comments |

 

Tories stand with Israel: When I saw the title of this piece by Larry Zolf on the Ceeb website—“Harper’s Israel policy has deep roots”—I cringed. I thought it was going to be a typical “bash Israel” piece, the kind that has become standard issue at Canada’s publicly-funded broadcaster. (As a taxpayer and a dissatisfied consumer, I’d like to know who to phone to get a rebate for my share of the funding? I’m tired of paying for a broadcaster that has more in common with al Jazeera than it does with Fox.) But when I read the piece, it turned out to be a pleasant surprise:

The standard charge against Stephen Harper's foreign policy is that it's a clone of the policies of U.S. President George Bush.

Harper, his critics say, has gutted the image of Canada as a neutral middle power and peacemaker, a nation with a pragmatic foreign policy. He has, they say, a foreign policy that is brand new for Canada: a one-sided defence of Israel.

These critics all focus on the so-called "golden age of diplomacy" as practiced by the Liberals under Lester Pearson: a tradition of studied neutrality in the Middle East that has been embraced in Canadian foreign policy under the Liberals ever since.

It's this foreign policy that Harper has scuttled. Harper is pro-Israel and has kept a close lid on the Foreign Affairs Department, lest it stray too far from his line on the Mideast.

The historically challenged small 'l' liberal media sees Harper as an unbalanced supporter of Israel and sees Israel as the aggressor in the present crisis in Lebanon.

The real model for Harper's stance

But a closer look at history shows that Harper's stance on the Middle East is not aping Bush and the Americans. A careful look shows that the real model for Harper's present foreign policy and stand on Israel is John Diefenbaker.

In 1956, Britain, France and Israel went to war with Egypt after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Pearson and Louis St. Laurent condemned the European powers and Israel.

In 1957, the Diefenbaker Tories upset the Pearson Liberals in an election that directly challenged the traditional Liberal Pearson view of foreign policy and the Middle East.

Diefenbaker sharply attacked the St. Laurent-Pearson Liberals for their Suez policy. He dumped the idea of a moderate, neutral and pragmatic Canada in favour of taking a stand with the defence of Britain, France and Israel. And he won the election.

As prime minister, he created a pro-Israel, anti-Pearson and anti-External Affairs policy.

He was convinced that External Affairs (as Foreign Affairs was called at the time) was against both Israel and his government's foreign policy and he viewed the department with suspicion.

Mulroney echoed Diefenbaker's views

From the mid-1980s to the early '90s, another Tory prime minister, Brian Mulroney, echoed Diefenbaker in his distrust of Foreign Affairs and in his pro-Israel stance.

That's the tradition Harper is following.

His hands-on policy — and his one-man rule on foreign affairs and anything the Foreign Affairs Department does — is reminiscent of Dief's distrust of the department and bitter dislike of Pearson. Diefenbaker was convinced that External Affairs was anti-Israel and against the foreign policy of his government.

Harper, like Diefenbaker, also distrusts the media's stance on Israel.

Diefenbaker, a lifelong supporter of Israel, did not like the position the Kennedys and the American liberal media took on Israel and the Mideast. Harper is a disciple of William Buckley Jr., whose contempt of American liberals' and the media's stand on Israel is well known.

The liberal media argument that Harper is too pro-Israel and too pro-Bush is simplistic. And its criticism of Harper as a blundering, wrongheaded, rookie simpleton in the Middle East does not square with history.

Harper is not George Bush's toadie. His policy on Israel and the Mideast is part of a long Tory tradition.

To review: Diefenbaker, Mulroney, Harper—friends of Israel. Trudeau, Chretien, Martin and the new Liberal leader, whoever he or she may be—not.

Something for Jews who would support Israel and would like to see it (and Canada) survive the jihad to bear in mind come election time.

posted by: scaramouche at 20:36 | link | comments (1) |

 

Pessimistic forecast: In Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz warns that the “United States, Israel, and every sentient being in the path of the Islamist crusade are teetering on the brink of a massive defeat in Lebanon and thus in the war on terror.”

 

Read it and weep.

posted by: scaramouche at 15:47 | link | comments |

 

Jew-haters round-up:

 

posted by: scaramouche at 15:19 | link | comments |

 

Chutzpah!: Iran, the Shia dystopia that’s rushing to complete its nuclear project, the better to be and display the biggest Muslim dick in the neighbourhood; the nation led by genocidal Islamo-Nazis who vow to eliminate the Jewish “cancer”; the state sponsor of Hezbollah, which greenlighted the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers in order to divert the attention away from Iran's nuclear schemes—must I go on? Those guys are saying that “peace” hinges on divesting Israel (that Jewish blot on the impeccable Muslim map) of its nuclear weapons.

 

Count on Kofi and the gang to see that as a not unreasonable request.

posted by: scaramouche at 15:07 | link | comments |

 

Mel-t down: I don’t know about you, but the news that Mel Gibson has exposed himself to be an insane Jew-hater is about as shocking as the news that the newly reconstituted UN Human Rights Council is just as pointless and Jew-hating as the old UN body it replaced. That is, not at all shocking.

 

Oh, sure, hearing Mel utter the actual words—that “the Jews” (booga booga) are responsible for all the wars in the world—is a bit startling, but only when you consider that they’re coming out of the mouth of the man once identified by People magazine as the sexiest man alive. But when you remember that this is the same guy who adorned his Jesus movie with some particularly gruesome and extra-textual touches—like that scene where the Jewish children turn into demons—it all falls into place.

 

Word is that Hollywood is divided about Mel’s melee with the L.A. policeman (who Mel queried about his possible Semitic-ness—at least he didn’t ask him to drop his pants). Some say it’s proof that, despite previous denials that he harboured any anti-Jewish animus, Mel is a more dashing but somewhat less Teutonic version of egregious Jew-hater Ernst Zundel. Others are saying, hey, give the guy a break: He’s under a lot of pressure; he hasn’t been able to lick a stubborn drinking problem; and don’t forget he’s made a crap-load of money, and odds are he can do it again. 

 

Me? I’ve always believed in vino veritas, and much as my heart went pitta-pat for Mel back in day (especially his turn as the outrageously attractive reporter in The Year of Living Dangerously—ayzeh chatichah, as they say in Hebrew), I can’t help but think that the booze loosened his tongue and allowed him to speak from his heart.

 

Which, we can now say with more certainly, is a cold-blooded, Jews-are-Christ-killers, antisemitic organ.

 

Much like his hate-corroded, delusional brain.

posted by: scaramouche at 14:51 | link | comments |

 

No win situation: Don’t worry about Israel. She’ll survive—just as long as no more Hezbollah supporters and their children, who’ve been content to live amongst their heroes and champions—are killed. Because unless Israel can turn back the tide of the jihad in a bloodless manner and keep all the little Lebanese Hezbollah supporters alive and in one piece (certainly, a demand that isn’t made of the jihadis, who are way behind in the casualty sweepstakes and haven’t yet killed enough Jews to make the war “proportionate”), it will continue to be pilloried in the clueless mainstream media by the likes of the Globe and Mail’s Mark MacKinnon.

 

Here’s how MacKinnon begins today’s emotionally manipulative account of the Israeli reprisal than resulted in civilian casualties:

QANA, LEBANON -- A baby's diaper, a child's colouring book and a woman's dress lying grotesquely beside the rubble. This is what remained yesterday after Israel bombed a residential building where 63 people from two families had huddled together for 16 straight nights, hoping the air raids would leave the unfinished structure alone.

At least 55 people, 34 or more of them children, were crushed to death in the Israeli attack. More bodies were still believed to be buried inside yesterday as night fell.

Brothers Abbas and Haider Hashem had worked for four years to build the home, which was envisioned to house their large extended family. Yesterday, it was reduced to a pile of shattered concrete and twisted metal that collapsed on and suffocated those who had been hiding in the basement when the Israeli bomb hit.

All around lay suggestions of the humble life the Hashems and the neighbouring Shalhoub clan lived during their time inside the simple shelter. The colouring book was filled with pictures of a girl and her dog shaded yellow and green. There were soccer trading cards, track pants, a mismatched collection of sandals and a plastic bottle of cooking oil.

There's little question that this was a town that supported Hezbollah, the Shia militia that provoked war by capturing two Israeli soldiers almost three weeks ago. A giant photograph of Iran's deceased Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomaini glares at drivers from one of the main roads leading into town.

Residents speak admiringly of what they call "the resistance."

But as a front-end loader clawed through the rubble last night -- the work occasionally pausing as United Nations and Red Cross staff carefully extracted another body part from the wreckage -- there were no obvious signs of Hezbollah's presence.

Israel has acknowledged targeting the building between 12 a.m. and 1 a.m. yesterday morning, saying the attack was a response to Hezbollah fire from the area. That charge will likely never be proved or disproved. There was no destroyed truck at the site that might have been a mobile missile launcher; no mangled military equipment...

Now, don’t you hate those brutal Israelis for what they’ve done to this idyllic Islamo-Nazi village?

 

Bravo, MacKinnon, for a job well done.

posted by: scaramouche at 11:54 | link | comments |

Friday, 28 July 2006

 

Down time:

 

A blogging break

Is what I’ll take.

Sat. and Sun., and then,

Back on Monday again.

posted by: scaramouche at 21:01 | link | comments |

 

Where’s Nasty: Hiding out at the Iranian embassy. Where else would he be? (link via Drudge)

posted by: scaramouche at 17:15 | link | comments |

 

The ties that (don’t) bind: A group I’m involved in was brainstorming (or spit-balling, in current parlance) the other day about the most effective ways to dispel Jew-hatred. During the discussion, the leader of the group mentioned that she had spoken to someone who thinks the best way to do that is to “build bridges” between Jews and Muslims—individuals, groups and communities—hoping that in times of crisis these bridges will hold.

 

I strongly disagreed. While I see nothing wrong with maintaining friendly relationships, (“it couldn’t hurt,” as the old punchline goes) I said that it’s dangerous to think see such “friendships” as operating on anything more than the most superficial level, to expect to maintain them when the chips are down, so to speak.

 

That’s the same point I tried to make to Bernie Farber, back when we exchanged e-mails regarding the CJC’s condemnation of the Danish newspaper that had published the Mo ‘toons. At the time, Farber was extremely pleased that Muslim organizations had commended the CJC’s stance (quel surprise!) and insisted that these ties would stand us in good stead when the CJC marched arm-in-arm with Muslim groups to lobby the provincial government to fund our religious schools.

 

An article in the New York-based Jewish weekly, Forward, proves my point (and shows how naïve and short-sighted the CJC was). The piece is written by a Jew who lives in Detroit and thought he had built solid relationships with local Muslims. (Detroit and nearby Dearborn are home to a large population of Muslims.) It took the current war between Israel and the jihadis to show him how flimsy these bonds really were:

Here in the metro Detroit area, we have been fortunate when it comes to inter-group and inter-religious relations. Civility between diverse ethnic and interfaith groups, including members of the large local Arab American community, has largely been maintained throughout the most difficult of times, even when ethnic, religious and cultural conflicts flare in other parts of the world.

That is, until recent days. What I heard and saw at recent anti-war rallies in Detroit and Dearborn went far beyond the pale.

I was among the thousands who attended a rally in Dearborn on July 18, and I never felt so alone in my life. I understand tensions are high in the Arab-American community. I sincerely sympathize with the deep concern for family and friends in Lebanon; I, too, worry about family and friends in Israel. Yet it is one thing to criticize Israeli policy, and quite another to compare Israeli actions to Nazi Germany's final solution that exterminated 6 million Jews.

As I walked among the rally participants, several thoughts rushed through my mind. The first was how young many of them were. A whole generation of metro Detroiters — our future neighbors, schoolmates, co-workers and leaders — will remember this day forever.

Second, I struggled to come to grips with how Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah could be so glorified. Nasrallah heads an extremist terrorist group that frequently calls not only for "death to Israel," but also "death to America." Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers in Lebanon, and hundreds of innocent civilians. As an American and a Jew, it is difficult for me to understand why so many Arab Americans in my community venerate him and others of his ilk.

Finally, the antisemitic placards at the rally were a horrendous display of Israel as Nazi obsession. Signs compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler and equated Stars of David with Nazi swastikas; one sign read, "Israel Nazi Are the Same Thing." This ugly comparison demeans the victims, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, of Nazi genocide, demonizes Israelis, and dehumanizes those who support Israel. Had the July 18 rally been held in Europe instead of Dearborn, it would likely have been officially classified as an antisemitic event.

After so many years promoting tolerance and the need for understanding among Detroit's rich mosaic of ethnic, racial and religious groups — and it pains me to say this — the Jewish community here should be alarmed about what the future will be like for our children, and their children, in metro Detroit. The Arab Americans' youthfulness and sheer numbers must be noted. They are learning quickly about political activism in America, and have connections with activist groups throughout the world.

We cannot afford to ignore their anger and misguided messages. We need to think long and hard about future interactions…

An object lesson for us all, including those of us who are proud to call one of the world’s most multicultural cities our home.

 

Update: And speaking of Detroit and Dearborn

posted by: scaramouche at 14:20 | link | comments |

 

1984 today: Charles Krauthammer on our Orwellian times. From JWR:

What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?

Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats — has completely lost its moral bearings.

The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried "disproportionate Israeli response."

When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a cinder, and turned the Japanese home islands to rubble and ruin. Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.

Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to the blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with "proportionate" aerial bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the greatest land invasion in history that flattened and utterly destroyed Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the process.

The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.

In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.

But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.

On Wednesday, CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas?

Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead, it attacked dual-use infrastructure — bridges, roads, airport runways — and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten-thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.

Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in south Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.

Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?

I’m pretty sure that last question was rhetorical.

posted by: scaramouche at 13:44 | link | comments |

 

A tale of two papers: There’s a disconnect (a chasm, really) between the Globe and Mail’s news coverage of the current phase of the jihad against Israel and the paper’s editorial position. News-wise, the Globe’s husband and wife team of MacKinnon and Wheeler have been writing stories in which Israel is the brutal aggressor and the Lebanese their hapless and innocent victims; Hezbollah is bad too, but not as bad as the Zionists. Editorial-wise, the Globe has been much more balanced and perceptive about the situation, and willing to shoot down some of the nonsense that been flying around.

 

Case in point: today’s lead editorial which examines--and torpedoes--Canada’s “mythical status as honest broker in the Middle East”:

 

…The awkward truth is that Canada has done little to advance Middle East peace. Our last big contribution occurred when Lester Pearson helped negotiate an end to the Suez crisis in 1956, half a century ago. Our only significant role in the Oslo peace process that began in the 1990s was to head a committee on the fate of refugees, an issue that has yet to be solved. No recent Canadian prime minister has been even a bit player in settling the region’s quarrels. When a crisis erupts, as it has this month, no on in the Middle East asks: What does Canada think?

 

The reputation that Mr. Harper is supposed to be squandering exists mainly in the minds of Canadians like Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Graham. We are not abandoning our role as honest broker in the Middle East because we never were one.

 

In any case, it is hard to see exactly what even the most honest broker could do in the present situation. The Oslo process is dead. The “road map” to peace is in tatters. The current Palestinian government, led by Hamas, a terrorist group, refuses even to acknowledge Israel’s right exist. Hezbollah, which started the current conflict by kidnapping and killing Israel’s soldiers, and then firing rockets at Israeli cities, is devoted to Israel’s destruction.

 

To take a neutral stand between terrorist militias fuelled by radical Islam and a democratic country defending itself from attack would have been a perversion of our traditions…

 

Hear, hear.

 

There’s no disconnect between the National Post’s news coverage and its editorial position re the current crisis. The two are in complete harmony. Here’s part of the Post’s excellent editorial explaining the connection between Hezbollah and its puppet master, Iran, and the central but behind-the-scenes role the dystopia is playing in this war:

For the last two weeks, innocent Israelis have been killed in missile barrages from Lebanese-based Hezbollah terrorists and militia. On the other side of the border, more than 300 Lebanese civilians have been accidentally killed by Israeli bombs aimed at Hezbollah assets. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers have engaged with Hezbollah gunmen in ground combat, with both sides taking heavy casualties. All this loss of life was caused by Hezbollah's decision to stage an unprovoked act of war on uncontested, sovereign Israeli soil two weeks ago.

But why did Hezbollah do it? Since the government of Lebanon and most ordinary Lebanese people plainly didn't want this war, who did? Who is pulling Hezbollah's strings?

HERE ARE A FEW CLUES:

- The Shiite terrorist group receives US$120-million in annual financing from Tehran, where it operates an office on a central downtown street.

- Hezbollah was created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Several hundred IRGC officers are operating in Lebanon to this day, assisting Hezbollah's war effort.

- According to Western intelligence sources, over the last six months, the IRGC has been teaching Hezbollah how to operate its massive stock of rockets, many of which are from Iran. These include Zelzal missiles, which can reach Tel Aviv and beyond.

- On Wednesday, more than 60 Iranian self-declared suicide bombers, bedecked in Hezbollah paraphernalia, set off from Tehran in a "holy war" against Israeli forces in Lebanon.

- Yesterday, a Kuwaiti newspaper broke the news that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is travelling to Damascus for secret meetings with Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani.

- During fighting in Lebanon, Israeli soldiers have seized weaponry marked with the logo of Iranian military manufacturers, such as the grenade launcher featured in the photo below.

- Earlier this month, Iranian troops assisted Hezbollah in firing a C-802 radar-guided missile at an Israeli warship, killing several crew members and nearly sinking the craft.

- Iranian officials met with Hezbollah leaders in Damascus on July 12, the very day this conflict started and -- as David Frum has noted on these pages -- the same day Western nations announced a threat of economic sanctions against Iran if the Islamic Republic refused to curtail its nuclear program.

Get the picture? As despicable and murderous as Hezbollah's own jihadist ideology may be, the group is very much a creature of Iran, which is seeking to flex its muscle against the West without actually attacking Western targets directly. Whether or not one thinks Israel is exercising "disproportionate" force in the prosecution of this war, there is no doubt about who is behind it: The people dying in Haifa and Beirut are the victims of a proxy conflict funded and planned by warmongers in Tehran…

posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments |

Thursday, 27 July 2006

 

Inappropriate funding: Islam Online, a Wahabist-funded website which propogandizes on behalf of the one true faith and often has scathing things to say about America and Israel, is sponsoring a program, based in Munich, to help train science journalists in the Middle East. And by the Middle East, of course, they mean the Arab Middle East. (Not that science journalists in the tiny Jewish sector need any special training, living as they do in a democracy that’s in the forefront of science and technology.)

 

And you’ll never guess who’s coughing up some of the cash to pay for the program:

 

...Dr. Magdy Said, former head of IslamOnline.net's science and cultural departments, commented on the website's participation in the program. "It's been one of our goals as a science department at IslamOnline.net to build our skills in a step-by-step process in order to play a role in the science and technology system in the Arab and developing worlds," he said. "If there are calls for reform in the Arab and developing worlds, part of these reforms must be in the science and technology sector. And we at IslamOnline.net believe that we must play a role in the popularization of science as part of these reforms," added Said. "By participating in the World Federation of Science Journalists' two-year mentoring program, we are partaking in the reform of science journalism in our part of the world. We also benefit ourselves by learning more skills and gaining more knowledge in our field of work. We are taking one more large step ahead in fulfilling some of our goals at IslamOnline.net," he concluded. 

The 20 experienced science journalists in the Munich training workshop have jointly accumulated more than 300 years of accumulated experience in science journalism, establishing science beats, and creating associations. They come from Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, South and North America, as well as Europe.

Dr. Kathryn O'Hara, who holds the Chair in Science Journalism at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, structured the Munich session. "Thinking like a mentor is not necessarily the same as thinking like a journalist," she explained. "There is a huge wealth of expertise in this group."

The session was organized in collaboration with Technisch-Literarische Gesellschaft (TELI) and the Wissenschafts-Pressekonferenz (WPK), the two German science journalist associations.  Regional co-ordinators are Diran Onifade, a Nigerian television reporter, for English-speaking Africa; Nadia El-Awady, science editor of the Cairo-based IslamOnline.net internet service for the Arabic-speaking world, and science journalism professor Gervais Mbarga of the University of Yaounde in Cameroon for Francophone Africa.

The mentoring scheme is funded by Canada's International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DfID).

Um, why is Canada paying to train Arab journalists in Munich with the aim of furthering the goals of Islam Online? Surely our tax dollars could be put to much better use—say, like helping resettle all those Hezbollah supporters, er, Lebanese-Canadians, fleeing the war.

posted by: scaramouche at 22:56 | link | comments |

No escape: Interim Liberal leader Bill Graham is shooting off his mouth again. Bill, like the rest of the clueless left, is displeased with Canada’s so-called “new direction”—you know, how it’s “tilting” toward Israel and George W. Bush’s America and tilting away from its mythical fence-sitting, er, peace-keeping position. From the Toronto Star:

MONTREAL — Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s reaction to the death of a Canadian peacekeeper i