Monday, September 1, 2014

The CLC's "Palestine" Map Leaves No Room for Israel

The Canadian Labour Congress, whose members are taking part in today's Labour Day Parade, has an "interesting" map of "Palestine" on its site. It looks like this.

Funnily enough, were you to dress it up with an Arafatesque checkered pattern it would look a lot like this:



Update: Here's how the CLC rolls:
The CLC reiterates its position adopted at the November 15, 2011 Canadian Council meeting which states that “there can be no lasting peace without the implementation of international law” which entails: ending the occupation of Palestinian territories as per UN resolutions 242 and 338, ending the blockade on Gaza, and implementing the International Court of Justice decision by dismantling the Separation Wall.
What about calling for the demilitarization of Gaza? And Hamas knocking it off with the rocket lobbing and the tunnel construction? And renouncing the genocidal intentions articulated in its Charter

What about that, Zion-loathing unionists?

A Zola-Like "J'Accuse" in The Telegraph: Jew-Hate (Zionhass) Is NOT Acceptable

Mick Davis writes:
The right to protest is treasured in all democracies. It is a right which should be fiercely protected from the sometimes malign forces of the powerful and the elite. It is a right to be nurtured and guarded by the passionate embrace of ordinary citizens, who are conscious of its affirming power.  
But the protests I have seen in recent weeks over the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas have filled me with dread. Banners attacking the legitimacy of Israel, chants of accusation of massacre and genocide and flagrant abuse of Jews and Israelis, are not the stuff of acceptable protest but the actions of bigots determined to demonise a democracy and its people. They have scant regard for the existential dilemmas Israelis face, nor the true nature of Hamas.  
 It is not acceptable to constantly single out Israel for unrestrained and uncritical condemnation without any acknowledgement of the disproportionate role that Israel has played amongst the Community of Nations in building a more prosperous and fairer world. Nor is it acceptable to march constantly against Israel while being silent on the horrors playing out in the Middle East and North Africa every day by purveyors of terror and evil.  
It is not all of the protesters, nor even a majority. But the malignant minority are not upbraided for their behaviour nor are they criticised or in any way held to account.  
It is not acceptable that the political discourse in this country allows a tragic and complex conflict to be reduced to the banality of domestic political infighting and a sordid grab for votes. Lord Prescott chose to lecture the Jewish people about not learning the lessons of the Holocaust? The Jews well understand the lessons of the Holocaust: that their faith in society to protect their rights and lives was catastrophically misplaced in wartime Europe, and that it is a mistake that will not be made again...
Oh, I dunno. I think there are plenty of Euro-Jews on/of the left who are counting on their rights and lives to be saved. Meanwhile, authorities who are terrified of the growing population of Jew-despising Muslims are more than willing to allow the angry haters to vilify the Jews.

Interfaith Doofus Wants Us To Stop Referring to "Moderate" Muslims Because Doing So Empowers "Islamophobia"

Silly me. I thought it made excuses for Islam's doctrines of jihad and supremacism.

Just goes to show what I know.

Nathan Lean, on the other hand (loved you in La Cage aux Folles, Nate), who's the Research Director at Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (which, tellingly, excludes the Jews), finds the "moderate" word most "troubling":
The idea of a “moderate Islam” or “moderate Muslim” is intellectually lazy because it carves the world up into two camps: the “good” Muslims and the “bad” Muslims, as Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani has noted...Until proven good, or in this case “moderate,” all Muslims are perceived as “bad,” or potentially extreme. We certainly don’t spend our time searching out “moderate” Christians or Jews, but rather reckon that the Westboro Baptists, Jewish Defense League, and others are aberrations. And sure, Muslims give us plenty of bad examples, but it’s our own fault if we allow those examples to constipate our ability to perform basic logic.
"Constipate": what an odd--and dare one say offensive and anally retentive--way to put it.

But how would Lean characterize, say, ISIS and Hamas? Would he call them "good" Muslims (because they follow to the letter the commands in Islam's holy texts to fight the infidel and spread the one true faith)? And are we, non-interfaithy kafirs, not allowed to say they're bad even though they do demonstrably bad things--like, say, slicing off people's heads and turning toddlers into rocket fodder? Or would Lean see that, too, as a function of our "Islamophobia"?

As it happens, I'm not so hot on the "moderate" label either. Oh, not because it sets up a "false" dichotomy between "good" and "bad" Muslims, but because it is not at all accurate. There are many different kinds of Muslims. Some of them go in for that jihad/supremacism business; some do not. I think that instead of focusing on labels like "moderate" and "radical/extremist," we should look at what's inspiring so many Muslims to behave in harmful and savage ways. Because unless we are free to talk about that, we might as well all say "Uncle!" right now.

The word that's really troubling, of course, is "Islamophobia." It is intellectually lazy because it carves up the world into two camps: the "good" infidels who accept the problematic aspects of Islam and problematic actions of Muslims without cavil, and the "bad" infidels (some of whom are mentioned by name in Nate's screed) who rail against "jihad is the way, sharia is the goal" (which, by no coincidence, is the motto of the folks--the MuBros--who coined the term "Islamophobia" in the first place).

Update: FYI, the full and proper name of Nate's employer is "The Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding."

Funny how the New Republic left out the first part of the title, no?

Update: Discover the Networks has a write-up on Nate's employer.

Update: Oooo, scary:
WITH THE RISE OF “stealth jihad,” “creeping Sharia,” “Islamofascism,” and “terror babies” in places like “The United States of Islamica,” “Eurabia,” and “Londonistan,” who wouldn’t be scared?

Fear sells and the Islamophobia Industry — a right-wing cadre of intellectual hucksters, bloggers, politicians, pundits, and religious leaders — knows that all too well. For years they have labored behind the scenes to convince their compatriots that Muslims are the enemy, exhuming the ghosts of 9/11 and dangling them before the eyes of horrified populations for great fortune and fame.

Their plan has worked.
Bwahahahaha!

The Month's Nutty Crescent Int'l Magazine Cover

This is how zany local Khomeinist Zafar Bangansh and the Ayatollah's other minions here in the West think--that the Joooos are behind 9/11 and are on the verge of unleashing another attack just like it. Also--that they're so demonically powerful that Obama heeds their commands. (Now, that's funny!) Aren't you glad that we've let so many of these lovely people into Canada so they can seethe and rage at Queen's Park each year as per the Ayatollah's orders?



Update: A riddle: How many zany Khomeinists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Answer: However many you can get to show up at Queen's Park on Al Quds Day, so that you can blame the Zionists for stealing all the bulbs and making you languish in the dark.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Ziohass in the Toronto Star

This letter appears in today's paper:
Re: Israel must grapple with uncomfortable truths, Opinion Aug. 28
Israel must grapple with uncomfortable truths, Opinion Aug. 28  
Albert Einstein once said, “Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.” Oscar Wilde stated, “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious,” and Voltaire declared, “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sounds of trumpets.” 
We are, of course, all familiar with the phrase, a little nationalism is a dangerous thing. What has evolved in Israel is a form of “puritanical ultra nationalism” and it has hijacked whatever reasonable and moderate form of democracy that previously existed in Israel. 
Israel’s efforts to liberate Jews from anti-Semitic discrimination has, paradoxically, devolved into a modern form of fascism fanatically stoked by the rhetoric and hyperbole of Benjamin Netanyahu and many ultra-orthodox Jews. 
Louis MacPherson, Bowmanville
Here's the letter I sent in response. I am not at all hopeful that the Star will publish it:
Since letter-writer Louis MacPherson is intent on quoting such intellectual luminaries as Albert Einstein, Oscar Wilde and Voltaire to make his case that Israel practices "a puritanical form of ultra-nationalism" that makes it fascist, allow me, in rebuttal to quote the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. In a speech he delivered to a conference of American rabbis in 1968, Dr. King said:
"Israel is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security, and that security must be a reality."
The only thing that has changed since then is that Israel is now forced to fight Hamas, an ISIS-like cadre of jihadis which, like fascist Germany, aims to do the world "a favour" by ridding it of Jews--all Jewry, and not only the ones in Israel.
 
Since Arab Israelis sit on Israel's Supreme Court and in its parliament, and, army service apart, have all the rights of citizenship as Israeli Jews--and certainly far more rights than Arabs and Muslims living anywhere else in the Middle East--it is more than inaccurate to describe Israel as "fascist." It falls under the heading of "the Big Lie"--whoppers that, historically, have been told about Jews for a variety of reasons, none of them good.
Update: Zionhass at Yale.

Today In "Tiny Minority of Extremists" News...

'Small but notable' number of Canadians engage in terror abroad

Friends of Ceeb Radio Campaign Tries to Guilt the Government Into Giving It More Moolah

Just heard the ad on a local radio station.

I say we start a counter-campaign--Enemies of the Ceeb--that calls for the government to cut the incorrigibly leftist public broadcaster's funding even further. Or better yet, privatize it.

"That's Some Jay Vee Team, Mr. President"

More stuff Obama was wrong about.

Making Fun of ISIS

This one's making the rounds on social media:

The spoof cover of Vogue which surfaced online was poking fun at the group's own magazine

The Birmingham Connection

Turns out the cleric who used to run a madrassa in Birmingham is a key funder of ISIS.

Obama 'Fessing Up That He Has "No Strategy"? Michael Ledeen Isn't Buying It

Ledeen says there is a strategy, and it's obvious for all to see should they care to look:
The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. 
Why would the POTUS want to pursue such a bizarre, benighted plan? As Ledeen explains, Obama and America's enemies, including those wannabe-nuclear mullahs in Ayatollahville, are muy simpatico re the historical deployment of American power:
The central theme in Obama’s outreach to Iran is his conviction that the United States has historically played a wicked role in the Middle East, and that the best things he can do for that part of the world is to limit and withdraw American military might, and empower our self-declared enemies, whose hostility to traditional American policies he largely shares. 
That's your president, Americans. How proud you must be! (BTW, I started to read--and got about 150 pages into--The Invisible Bridge by Rick Perlstein. Perlstein's thesis is that there's, yes, an invisible bridge between Richard Nixon's failed presidency and the rise of Ronald Reagan, who assumed the mantle of American conservatism and changed the U.S. forever--and not in a good way. The reason I gave up after only 150 pages into a book with 800+ pages is because Perlstein's scorn for Reagan and is so ugly and so unhinged that it became painful to read. Also, I got tired of annotating, furiously. Also, I didn't buy the author's "big idea"--that the 60s were swell because they revealed huge divisions, which was a good thing for America, and that Reagan, a simpleton and a phony in Perlstein's view, did the country a huge disservice by papering over those divisions and inspiring Americans to believe, post-Watergate, that their nation was still exceptional.

Boo hiss, Reagan.

Anyway, it seems to me that there is, in fact, no bridge, invisible or otherwise, between Nixon and Reagan. There is, however, a visible, a glowing, bridge between those 60s radicals and the man who currently occupies the Oval Office. Don't expect Perlstein to write a book about that, though. He's too busy trashing wicked conservatives [this is, after all, an author who calls Nixon, though not the Viet Cong, "evil"], and getting into a spot of bother over plagiarism while doing it.)



Update: What Barack Obama Can Learn From Richard Nixon About Israel and Foreign Policy