Today Jason Cherniak is trying to convince us that Stephane Dion and the Liberal party care about Israel. Jason says it's a Liberal party priority. He cites the fact that Stephane Dion, Gerrard Kennedy, Michael Ignatieff amongst other prominent Liberals attended the United Jewish Appeal's Walk with Israel. Thats interesting.

Sure they support Israel when it comes to a nice walk in the park. But when it comes down to brass tacks, the Liberals would sell Israel down the river in a heart beat.

At the Liberal leadership convention, which Dion won, Bob Rae was attacked "because his wife is Jewish". It is alleged that the attack came from Gerrard Kennedy supporters. Gerrard Kennedy ended up supporting Stephane Dion, a move which ultimately ended Bob Rae's leadership bid.

Of course there's also Michael Ignatieff's infamous accusation of Israeli war crimes being committed in Lebanon during last summer's war. Iggy never did retract those comments, he simply revised his comments to accuse Israel AND Hezbollah of committing war crimes. Clever.

Thirdly, during last summer's conflict between Lebanon and Israel, the Liberal party under Bill Graham denounced Prime Minister Stephen Harper because of his strong support for Israel. The Liberals thought that Canada should remain neutral in a conflict between the sovereign state of Israel and the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

Then there's dear Stephie. When Stephen Harper took the initiative to cut off funding to Hamas, another terrorist organization that stages almost daily rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, Stephane Dion was the Liberal foreign affairs critic. His response was to slam Harper, saying "The social problems [in the territories] are awful and, in fact, Canada should do more not less. So to cut $7-million would be a mistake."

So to sum it up Stephane Dion, the leader of the Liberal party has suggested Canada should fund an anti-Israeli terror group. His second in command, Michael Ignatieff, accused Israel of war crimes, when in fact they were defending themselves against a terrorist organization. The man who's support won the leadership for Dion helped him along the way by slandering his political opponent for marrying a Jew. Former Liberal leader Bill Graham, from whom Dion took the reigns of the party, explicitly said that Canada should not support Israel.

But Jason Chernaik says the Liberals support Israel, because they showed up for a walk in the park. It seems the Liberals can walk the pro-Israeli walk, but they won't talk the talk. I think Stephen Harper was correct when he accused the Liberals of being "anti-Israel".

Update: Rene reminded me about Denis Coderre's story. Denis Coderre, is the Liberal National Defense critic, and another person I'd call a "higher-up" in the Liberal party. Coderre marched in support of Hezbollah last summer. Thats the same Hezbollah that started the conflict by kidnapping an Israeli soldier and firing rockets at civilian targets in Israel. But seriously, Liberals support Israel. Seriously.

Labels: Bill Graham, Gerrard Kennedy, Hezbollah, Israel, Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, Stephen Harper

Rockets start flying over Israel... again.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday authorized the army to carry out limited operations in the Gaza Strip, but ruled out a large-scale ground offensive in response to a new round of rocket attacks, Israeli officials said. [...]

On Tuesday, the Islamic militant group said its members fired 41 rockets and 54 mortar shells in response to Israeli raids.

How much longer until Hezbollah gets involved is anyone's guess.

Labels: etc, Hezbollah, Israel

New UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been showing signs that he may actually recognize Israel's right to defend itself.

In a statement based on observations from the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, Mr. Ban said the Lebanese armed forces fired the initial shot in the first armed clash on the border since the war with Hezbollah last August. Mr. Ban also indicated that their target, an Israel Defense Force bulldozer, was operating inside Israel's territory.

But the Security Council, which later issued its own statement, made no reference to the secretary-general's comments. Instead, it reverted to familiar U.N. language and appealed to "all parties" to respect the cease-fire.

Unlike his predecessor Kofi Annan, it seems Mr. Ban is not afraid of telling the unvarnished truth. Hopefully Mr. Ban can continue to lead the UN on this path.

Labels: Hezbollah, Israel, politics, United Nations

Iranian State media is predicting the Apocalypse, possibly as soon as Spring! "Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance) will appear all of a sudden on the world scene with a voice from the skies announcing his reappearance at the holy Ka'ba in Mecca."

Imam Mahdi, also known as The Twelfth Imam, is supposed to return to Mecca when the world is in a state of total chaos. His return will mark the beginning of a massive global jihad, resulting in a perfect Muslim state covering the entire globe.

Now this poses two problems. The first being that the world is not in chaos. Sure, there are some "hot spots", but chaos would be a massive overstatement.

This makes one wonder what Ahmadinejad and Khamenei know that the rest of us aren't privy to. Could Iran be planning a Spring attack on Israel? Or possibly a large attack on Israel via their Lebanese proxy Hezbollah? Maybe they've made greater technological breakthroughs in their nuke technology than the West actaully knows.

Ahmadinejad has stated publicly in the past that he believes the main reason for the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for Imam Mahdi. In fact, Mahmoud also said in 2004 that he believed the Twelfth Imam was due to return in 2007.

Now, problem number two makes things REALLY interesting. It seems Imam Mahdi will be bringing backup with him:

We read in the book Tazkarat ol-Olia, 'the Mahdi will come with Jesus son of Mary accompanying him.' ... Imam Mahdi will be the leader while Prophet Jesus will act as his lieutenant in the struggle against oppression and establishment of justice in the world. Jesus had himself given the tidings of the coming of God's last messenger and will see Mohammad's ideals materialize in the time of the Mahdi.

Thats right, Jesus will be the #2 man in the New Global Jihad, according to Iranian television.

Was the whole mild-mannered peace-mongering carpenter persona just a cover? Were Jesus and his desciples really just a Sleeper Cell? Will Jesus be firing RPG's at Iraqi troops in four months time? And the biggest question of all: would George W. Bush sell American nukes to Jesus, even if he was in cahoots with Mohamed?

If Iran is right, you'd better prepare yourself for a long nuclear winter.

Labels: democracy, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, politics

I am starting to secretly wonder if Michael Ignatieff wasn't sent to sabatoge the Liberal leadership race. He's put himself in some very difficult positions. In the process he has made his opponents take sometimes difficult positions.... Or is he just up to no good?

As an example, Israeli "war crimes" probably would not have been a campaign issue were it not for Iggy's gaffe. Martha Hall Findlay points this out as well, saying "I think the very fact that leadership candidates are talking about this shows they’re thinking about the long-term interests of the party, rather than short-term partisan leadership advantage". (I'm not going to talk about how the Liberals are assuming they're going to form government - before they've even chosen a leader... or the fact that the only woman running for the leadership has been relegated to Official Party Nanny).

Now the Ignatieff wrecking-ball has come through Quebec. Iggy's latest faux paux was supporting re-opening the Constitution to recognize Quebec as a distinct Nation in the country of Canada.

All the other leadership contenders, not wanting to open that can of worms quite yet, have a plan:

Martha Hall Findlay, the lone woman in the race, is floating the idea that all eight candidates should issue a joint statement making it clear that they agree Quebec constitutes a nation within Canada, but that "now is not the time" to reopen the Constitution.

It's a nasty quagmire for the Liberal party as a whole... except for Iggy. He's the only one who's in the clear on this - and every other controvertial issue he's raised.

This is where my theory comes in. Sometimes, Iggys history really bothers me. His fly-in nomination to the House of Parliament, and his rookie-jump into the leadership fight strike me the most. But it also conjurs a paranoia in me, which makes me wonder if he's not an agent of the USA, sent to infiltrate Canada's longstanding Liberal Party government.

Or else, just possibly, Ignatieff is trying to corner every extreme of the Liberal party. The jew-haters know who their man is; Iggy's supported every war on the planet, except where Isreal has defended itself. Seperatists also know where Iggy stands, with or without a joint statement.

Labels: Israel, Michael Ignatieff

Poor Iggy doesn't stand a chance.

In August, Mr. Ignatieff said he was not "losing sleep" over deaths resulting from the Israeli bombing of the Lebanese village of Qana, which claimed the lives of 28 civilians, including children. That callous assessment of a human tragedy was surprising coming from one who continually bills himself as a professor of human rights. Most people, no matter whom they blame for the conflict, would be concerned about the deaths of innocents in a war zone.

This week when asked about the comment, he replied "I was a professor of human rights. I am also a professor of rights in war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime. And I should have said that, that's clear."

Easy on the back-peddling - and provide some evidence if you're going to make such outlandish accusations. Stephen Harper decides to step into the forray, never one to miss an opportunity to defend Israel. Harper responded to Iggy's comments, saying "This is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually all of the candidates for the Liberal leadership".

Harper paints with a broad brush. Each of the Liberal leadership contenders responded with outrage, some following it up with anti-Irael rhetoric. While Harper's comments may not adversly effect most of the candidates, it sure does a good job exposing Iggy for what he is.

"There is no basis whatever for Mr. Harper to suggest that the Liberal party is biased against Israel. The prime minister showed a profound lack of respect to the Official Opposition and a profound lack of respect to the Canadian people who elected them."

In 2004 Iggy wrote in an article titled Lesser Evils (emphasis mine):

If they need raw recruits, the Arab rage that makes for martyrs is still incandescent. Palestine is in a state of permanent insurrection. Iraq is in a state of barely subdued civil war. Some of the Bush administration's policies, like telling Ariel Sharon he can keep settlements on the West Bank, may only be fanning the flames.

If infering that the Israeli government is an insurrection isn't anti-Israel, I don't know what is. He also suggests that Israel's existence is the cause of "Arab rage that makes for martyrs".

The human rights professor who wants to run our country, also has this to say about fighting terrorism:

When democracies fight terrorism, they are defending the proposition that their political life should be free of violence. But defeating terror requires violence. It may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.

I can't stop thinking about the scene from Seinfeld, where George is lying face first on the floor, with his pants around his ankles. Jerry says "And you want to be my latex salesman?!"

Also check: The Broom, Small Dead Animals, Proud To Be Canadian

UPDATE
Iggy Goes To Israel. I guess if your going to accuse a nation of war crimes, it's best to do it face to face.

Labels: Israel, Michael Ignatieff

RP left a comment to my last post that touched a nerve, so here we go.

RP first argues that the Taliban are winning the war in Southern Afghanistan. While the CBC paints that picture pretty nicely, I disagree. Schools have been built, women now have rights, and they have a semi-democratic government, and most importantly they have hope. The war might not yet be won, but it's not being lost.

There is one aspect of the war that the Taliban is winning by miles, and thats the war of wills. The Taliban will not just go away, they've made that very clear. But everytime they kill one of our guys, Jack Layton is the first to call for withdrawl. I agree with RP that we need to win the hearts and minds of Afghani's, but how can we do that if they constantly see us questioning our beliefs?

On the same day as NATO calls for more troops, Jack Layton was calling for complete withdrawl. What kind of message does that send to the Afghani's we're trying to help, or the Taliban who wants do end our way of life? When Bin Laden says the West has a vulnerability that he intends to exploit, this is exactly what he's talking about.

The debate about Afghanistan seems to have changed since 9/11 as well. We seem to forget that we didn't go into Afghanistan under any pretense of helping free the people from a terrorist regime, that was Iraq. We went to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban, not just unseat them from power. It's about making the world safer for us. These people want to end our way of life, and they've proven they have the will and the means to attack us. Once the Taliban has been exterminated, then Afghani's will have a chance to really build something out of their country.

The rage of the 3,000 dead seems to have passed, and we've become complacent. When our soldiers die, rather than seeking vengence, and fighting with renewed vigor, Candians talk about cutting-and-running. Thank God for the leadership of Stephen Harper. I shiver when I think about what it might take for Canadians to wake up and realize that this is, as George W. Bush put it, "the great ideological struggle of the twenty-first century".

What Bush means by that, is that this war isn't about force and might. There is no question that if the West decided to, we could scorch every inch of the ground in Afghanistan, and leave nothing behind. However, that would be inconsistant with our values.

The importance of this war shouldn't be lost on anybody either. Just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor got the United States into World War 2, the attacks of 9/11 got the West involved in the Arab-Israeli war that has been going on since the beginning of time. Imagine what Europe, and the world, would be like now if the US had not responded with absolute resolve back then? Back then the West had the guts to stand up to facism, and it took two nuclear bombs to prove that we were up to the fight.

This war is entirely about wills. Does the West have the guts to actually fight for what's right - or will we let the attacks continue, with little or no reprecussions? If we run from this fight, what happens when Iran gets a nuke? Would they have any reason not to nuke Israel? They would wield that threat over the entire region, there is no doubt about that. The entire middle-east would basically be under the control of the Mullah's in Iran. Considering their love for the West, it would only be a matter of time until they used that threat against us.

The common denominator with every fight in the middle-east, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, soon to be in Iran and Syria: these people are very certain that we don't have the will to stop ANYTHING. They think our societies are weak, and we can't muster up the guts to actually put a stop to anything. And right now they're right.

World War 2 was the same way. The world tried to contain Hitler, ignore him hoping he'd go away, and appease him. If Hitler would have been dealt with early, the whole damn war could have been prevented. We are repeating exactly the same mistakes today. People like Mohammed Ahmadinejad, Sayed Hassan Nesrallah, Bashar Assad, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and countless others openly call for the destruction of Israel and America. Not only is this allowed, people in the west defend their "right" to say it, even though these people would NEVER give their citizens the same right to speak out.

The true winner of a war can only truly be judged many years down the road. What really counts, is which side your on right now. When George W. Bush says "your either with us, or against us", he's bang-on the money. If you don't support the war and what it stands for, you are by proxy defending the attrocities that psychotics like Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad have - and would like to - perpatrate across the globe.

RP asks "In the meantime, do we just keep throwing our soldiers into the fire and hope for a miracle?". We are only "throwing our soldiers into the fire" if we send them over there and don't back them up. I do believe we should continue giving NATO, and our soldiers every resource they require to get the job done. I wouldn't call that "throwing our soldiers into the fire". Fuck the Taliban, God Bless Canada. Go get 'em boys!

Now, I'm off to my first day of classes.

Labels: Iran, Israel

Now this is a step in the right direction for Hamas' thinking.

A senior member of Hamas has broken a taboo by calling on Palestinians to stop blaming Israel for all their ills and look instead at their own failures.

...

"The anarchy, chaos, pointless murders, the plundering of lands, family feuds … what do all of these have to do with the occupation?" he asked in the opinion piece published in the Palestinian newspaper, al-Ayyam. "We have always been accustomed to pinning our failures on others, and conspiratorial thinking is still widespread among us."

This is long overdue.... I hope the guy lives to see the end of the week, though I don't think his chances can be too good.

Interestingly enough, this comes in the same week as Hassan Nasrallah's admission of guilt for starting the Lebanon Hostage-War. He even admits that the violence was caused by his own mis-calculation: "You ask me, if I had known on July 11... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not."

Both events are steps toward coming to terms with reality. If people can come to terms with the fact that Israel is not "The Great Satan", and that Hezbollah was in fact acting in the interests of Iran and Syria (and NOT Lebanon) - it may open their eyes to what really needs to change in the region. Maybe there is hope afterall.

Labels: Israel

I can't believe this son of a bitch is going to get away with this.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah leader, said his men had achieved "a strategic, historic victory" over "a confused, cowardly and defeated" enemy. He said the militia would not disarm, as Israel and the UN Security Council were demanding. It would be "immoral, incorrect and inappropriate," he said. "It is the wrong timing on a pyschological and moral level."

If what just happened in Lebanon is "winning", I'd hate to see what losing looks like. If this son of a bitch doesn't disarm, Israel will have to go in again. The whole point of the offensive was to disarm Hezbollah. If that objective is not met, Israel should not be withdrawing.

The incoming UN force can't be trusted to disarm Hezbollah against their will. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the UN started fighting alongside Hezbollah against Israeli soldiers in the future.

Labels: Hezbollah, Israel

Eight Canadians were killed today in Lebanon.

In addition to the Israeli victims at a rail repair facility in Haifa, eight Canadians vacationing at their family village in Lebanon died in an Israeli raid

Thanks to Hezbollah, eight Canadians are now dead. I hope that this time around, Israel pounds the rotten bastards into the ground.

Labels: Hezbollah, Israel

There are two developing crises in the middle east right now. The first is Iran's nuclear programme. The second is Hamas being democratically elected to take over the Palistinian Authority.

The Wests position on both situations is rather predictable. Iran should not be able to persue nuclear technology at all, since it's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for the destruction of Israel.

An interesting point to note about Ahmadinejad: although Iran has had democratic elections for some years now, Ahmadinejad was the first elected President that wasn't backed (read: selected) by the religious clerics who ACTUALLY rule the country. His election platforms were to have less relations with the West, the destruction of Israel, and wider distribution of Iran's oil wealth amongst the lower class. It was a fairly centrist platform (relatively speaking, of course). Once elected however, he found out quickly that his ideas were deeply divisive amongst the population, and he couldn't gather any "political capital" for his agenda. Until the nuclear programme controversy. Ahmadinejad is a strong believer in Irans right, as a sovereign nation, to nuclear energy. This has been a strong belief of the Muslim clerics in Iran for many years, so they started to love him for it. He coupled this stance with a bunch of anti-Israeli rhetoric, and almost over-night, he had won the support back of the populace.

Similarly, the west is none to happy with the election of Hamas in Palestine, a group who been a major supporter of terror attacks in Israel, and throughout the middle east. They also included the destruction of Israel, as one of the key points in their election campaign. The concern with Hamas is that their legions of suicide bombers, who previously were viewed as terrorist extermists, may now gain international credibility, and the fact that the Palistinians have given the group a pretty clear "mandate". And just as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election had added legitimacy, not being supported by the clerics; Hamas' election also was given added credibility since it was the first time the uber-corrupt Fatah group had been defeated, and by a wide margain to boot.

The way that the west deals with these two situations, will have serious implications for the future. The West is finally seeing its "dream" of democracy in the middle east come to fruition, but the results are less than ideal. Realistically the prospect of any country in the middle east electing a pro-west government, democratically, is highly unlikely. The Wests ability to maintain peaceful relations with these new governments', is and will continue to be, tested regularly. Even the infallible George W. Bush is having his doubts about the situation. Remarkably, rather than denouncing the legitimacy of the terrorist organization, he's given them the option of disarming, and having diplomatic relations! This is an unusually weak position for ol' W. He's even defended the Palistinian people for electing Hamas, using the corruption of Fatah as the basis for that argument. It goes to show that for once in the idiots life, he's walking the walk AND talking the talk (for the time being, anyway).

The next several weeks should be very interesting to see how this plays out. If there is a workaround to get Iran its nuclear energy, while at the same time keeping nuclear weapons technology out of their hands, I think it would be a victory for both sides. Likewise in Palestine. If the West does try to issolate Hamas, I can see nothing but bad things happening. The Palestinians are not accustomed to the PA doing any good for them. For many years under Fatah, the PA was about as corrupt a group as there is in politics. This was a major reason why Hamas was elected. However, if Western aid is cut off, and the people's needs are not being met, its unlikely they would revolt against their own government, but much more likely attack Israel.

The manner in which western nations handle these two incidents could have implications for years to come, in regards to middle eastern countries adopting democratic forms of government. If these two governments end up being internationally isolated from the rest of the world, many middle eastern nations will see democracy to be incompatible with their way of life. It could also have nasty implications in countries that are just begining to adopt democracy, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, amongst others.

All good democracies have growing pains. Its a matter of fact. The United States had their Revolution. We in Canada were consumed with rebellions in the early years of confederation. First in Lower Canada, then Upper Canada, and the final rebellion with Louis Riel out in Manitoba. I could go on and on. Canada to this day, almost 140 years into our existance, have still not quite got it down. Quebec still wants to fuck off into the sunset, and we, as a nation, are becoming more polarized politcally by region. Not to mention that Queen fucking Lizzy still has a goddamn veto over us (damn those colonial shackles)!

My point is, democracies aren't easy. They take a long time to fully flourish. But its this growing period that defines a nations character, and as such, its future. If Iranians continue to elect leaders who are hell-bent on the destruction of their neighbours, their future will not be not bright. If, however, Iranians realize that with the right to vote comes responsibility, their destiny will be their own to control. Same goes for the Palastinians keeping Hamas in check. I'm done.

Labels: Iran, Israel