Blog about politics (mideast and pro-Israel, Canadian and local Montreal), world events, and random thoughts.

""

The World I Know is updated on a semi-regular basis by segacs.

Think I'm the greatest thing since chocolate-covered strawberries? Think I'm certifiably insane? E-mail me at segacs2.at.yahoo.ca.

Buy me a present! Visit my Amazon Wish List.

Frequently asked questions about me and this blog.

Atom site feed

Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of segacs's world i know.

---

<< List
Jewish Bloggers
Join >>

 
11:47 PM
Cause it's next.

Mark Steyn writes that he expects that Americans will get through today's tragedy, because they are tough (via LGF):

Nonetheless, this will not be as traumatisingly mesmeric as the Challenger disaster. The yellow-ribbon era died with September 11: even if their television networks haven't quite adjusted, Americans are tougher about these things; this is a country at war and one that understands how to absorb losses and setbacks.

[ . . . ]

No doubt in the big-time mosques the A-list imams really will regard what happened as the judgment of Allah on the American-Zionist plan to seize the heavens. The rest of us will mourn the dead and urge Nasa to get on with the next flight. That's the American way.

In a way, Steyn is right. This isn't the end of the world, and people will mourn and move on. Israel's space program will forge ahead. As it should, as Gerald M. Steinberg writes in the Jerusalem Post:

The exploration of space, despite the risks and tragedies, embodies the positive spirit of discovery that is essential to the human species. And when these flights resume, other Israelis will be on board, carrying on the work that Ilan Ramon began. May his memory be blessed.

As for the Americans, these thoughts were resolutely stated by President Bush in his address to the nation today:

"Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery. . . . Our journey into space will go on."

I'm reminded of a line from one of my favourite TV shows, The West Wing, by character Sam Seaborn (played by Rob Lowe. In the episode "Galileo", he is asked by Mallory why it's so important to try to go to Mars. He answers:

Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave. And we looked over the hill, and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration, and this is what's next.

Damn straight.

|

 
10:18 PM

IAF Col. Ilan Ramon, z"l (1954-2003)

"Ramon was not just a pilot or astronaut. He was a symbol. A symbol of excellence and freedom, when Israel was undergoing one of the most difficult experiences of its life."
- Dan Gillerman, Israeli ambassador to the UN.

|

 
7:49 PM
Forgive me for saying this, but in a strange way today feels like 9/11.

Of course, there is no comparison between the horrid loss of over 3000 lives due to a cowardly terrorist attack, and the tragic loss of 7 astronauts due to a scientific error, accident, or malfunction. I wouldn't even begin to equate the two in terms of scope, implication, or anything else.

That being said, both days have that "twilight-zone" sort of feeling to them like they're not quite real. Both are disasters that will go down in the history of the United States and that draw sympathy from the world. Both events are those kinds of days that, decades later, I know I will always remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first heard - and so will just about everyone else.

In both cases, I heard about what happened on the radio, while only semi-listening. Both on 9/11 and today, a news brief broke into the middle of a music sweep on an FM station - an unusual occurrance. And in both cases, I initially reacted with denial, thinking it was some sort of sick practical joke, and not fully processing what I was hearing. The denial then gave way to shock, and amazingly enough, in both cases I went ahead with my regular daily activities for a few hours (on 9/11 I went to class, and today I went skiing). Both on 9/11 and today, I returned home and glued myself to CNN, and only then did it begin to sink in. In both cases, the aftermath will be much more involved than the actual event.

Like I said, forgive me for feeling this way. But events like today's tend to leave me shaken.

I'll always remember when I heard that Yitzchak Rabin was shot.

I'll always remember when I heard that a bomb went off at Hebrew University . . . at the Sbarro Pizzeria . . . at a Passover seder in Netanya . . . at the Dolphanarium Disco . . . in downtown Tel Aviv . . .

I will always remember when I heard that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.

And I will probably always remember when I heard that the Columbia Space Shuttle was lost.


In memory of the astronauts of the Columbia Space Shuttle, February 1, 2003

|

 
7:19 PM
It appears that I'm not the only one having a hard time finding the appropriate words for the Columbia disaster. At times like this, I often feel illiterate. Words never seem to be strong enough to express the appropriate emotions.

The blogosphere is reacting. LGF's Charles Johnson admits it's not in him to be positive, but quotes a poem by John Gillespie Magee of the RCAF in a short tribute. Glenn Reynolds has, of course, been blogging this extensively, including posting reader e-mails that he has received. Damian Penny has been following the updates on the astronauts aboard.

I think I'll take a break and just watch the story develop for a while.

|

 
7:09 PM
Lest this news be overshadowed by the Columbia tragedy, there was more tragic loss of life today. Six skiers were killed in an avalanche in British Columbia. More are missing.

Just awful.

Update: The death toll from this accident is now up to 7.

|

 
6:29 PM
The Space Shuttle Columbia has been lost, and all seven astronauts aboard were killed - including Col. Ilan Ramon of the IDF, Israel's first astronaut to fly into space.


Columbia crew: Rick Husband, Kalpana Chawla, William McCool,
Ilan Ramon, Laurel Clark, Michael Anderson, and David Brown

This is a horrible tragedy that is simply beyond words. Everyone is in shock, glued to CNN or a host of sources for updates and information. Every so often, there is a news item that is so shocking that it disrupts the world and pulls us away from our daily lives. This is one of them. My heart goes out to the families of the seven astronauts aboard.

I was out skiing all day and wasn't able to blog this earlier, but I will be following this for the next while as the news develops.

I have to admit, though, that when I first heard the news, my reaction was denial. I thought it was a practical joke. My next thought was that terrorism was involved - admit it, it flashed through your mind too. Especially considering the presence of Col. Ramon. And when I heard that reports of debris were coming from a town called Palestine, Texas, well, I had to shake my head with amazement at that particular coincidence. Officials, however, have found no evidence of terrorism at work here so far. And frankly, once I started thinking straight, I don't see how there possibly could be.

World leaders have offered their condolences to the families of the astronauts, to the United States, and to Israel. These include the Pope, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, EU Commission President Romano Prodi, French President Jacques Chirac, and even the Palestinian Authority issued a statement. Although this is truly disgusting: In a statement about the Columbia disaster, Iraq called it "God's punishment of America".

President Bush addressed the American people and pledged that the space program would continue despite the tragedy.

Today will go down in history.

|

 
10:26 PM
I wonder how many of Daniel Pipes' critics have read his article entitled Islam isn't evil: (via Damian Penny)

It is a mistake to blame Islam (a religion 14 centuries old) for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam (a totalitarian ideology less than a century old). The terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran.

Pipes then goes on to defend Islam against common misconceptions, as well as to develop a reasonable thesis about how Islam needs to modernize.

This makes me wonder why all the people protesting against Pipes were so against him. I suspect it has very little to do with Pipes's views on Islam, and more to do with his defense of Israel. Because to the extreme left, any defense of Israel is "racist".

|

 
5:28 PM
Milestone achieved! This blog has just officially reached 10,000 hits. I feel special now.

|

 
11:44 AM
The anti-war idiotarians are at least good for a laugh sometimes. This is from a group at McGill University protesting war with Iraq (via Yoni):

When you're happy and you know it, bomb Iraq

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Yeah, the protestors have no idea what they're talking about. But hey, at least it's more imaginative than smashing windows!

|

 
11:10 AM
Where do Canadian MPs stand on Iraq?

The Canadian Jewish Congress publishes debates in Parliament on its website including the debate on Iraq that took place yesterady. For anyone following Canadian politics and wondering where various MPs stand on the issue, it is highly worth a read.

|

 
10:56 AM
Pro-war Iraqis? A story in today's Gazette says that a large segment of Iraqis in Montreal are cheering the prospect of an American-led war on Iraq if it means that Saddam Hussein would be tossed out in the process:

But Sheik Mohammad Altaie, 57, spiritual leader and president of the Azzahra Foundation, a Shia Muslim community, said a war will be "very good" for Iraq if it spells the demise of Saddam. "He's a dictator. He killed 2 million, and 4 million migrated out of Iraq," he said.

The article doesn't suggest that people want war, but that they see it as a way of getting rid of Saddam. Most would welcome alternatives to war if Saddam could be outsted.

This echoes what people have been saying all along: War is bad, but sometimes it's the best of the worst options. If war can be avoided, great. But you don't solve a problem by burying your head in the sand and pretending it will disappear. Sometimes it is necessary to take action.

|

 
10:52 AM
Larry Elder writes in this week's JWR about an overwhelming Leftist bias among professors at American universities:

On college campuses across America, teachers influence students by running down America, demeaning capitalism, exaggerating "oppression" against minorities and women, and denouncing Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular.

Actually, there is a dangerous trend in the United States whereby secular universities are moving further to the Left, and Christian religious colleges further to the right. This is creating a divided society among the "leaders of tomorrow" because what happens to the secular right? The religious left? Most of all, what happens to the center?

Education, ideally, isn't learning facts but is learning how to think critically. However, anyone who pretends that education isn't a form of brainwashing is kidding themselves. After three to four years studying in a university, faculty, or department with a certain ideological bent, most people are absorbed into it no matter what happens. If the education system is only giving half of the picture, that's a giant failing.

For example, in this week's online version of the Link, an article discusses the possibility that Sheila Copps may run for the leadership of the Liberal party. An online user poll then asks students if they would vote for her as prime minister. The options - while predictably lame - don't give any choice for students who wouldn't because they find her too far to the left - only not left enough.

Concordia's campus politics reflect a similar picture. There's no left, right, and center in most CSU elections. There's only left, lefter, and leftest. Of course, this is a union election, so that's to be expected to some extent. But it does create a particular problem where the most left-wing slates automatically have an entire platform essentially custom-written for them. All they have to do is steal the latest ideas from socialism and - voila - a platform built on "human" (read: Palestinian) rights, aid for the poor, disabled and homeless, fighting for gender advocacy, support services, anti-corporate control on campus and in the media, and lower tuition. They don't even have to think about it, and in an election campaign their issues come across as credible, well-researched, and powerful.

Anyone running in opposition has two choices. They can present a clear alternative to them by putting forth a more right-wing platform, which is immediate political suicide. Even a hint of it is enough to kill a campaign. Take last year's CSU elections for example. The main group opposing the current extremist CSU was tarnished with allegations of being "right-wing" even though its politics probably fell slightly left of the NDP. The other alternative is to put forth a sort of non-platform, with issues that seem to be much less important. Either way is recipe for disaster.

Students who believe that tuition should be raised in order to improve education quality, those who don't mind and even welcome advertising in the bathrooms, and those who believe that a person should be hired on merit, not skin colour, to administrate the university find that they are quickly drowned out. For professors, it's even worse; academia being what it is, hold the wrong views and profs find themselves ostracized, unpublishable, and virtually unemployable.

I've said many times that too far Left is just as bad as too far Right. What is happening on university campuses deserves some attention.

|

 
11:56 PM
Random musings on Israeli politics:

So who's celebrating? Well, ironically, not Sharon. He knew he'd be re-elected. He's not going to celebrate until he figures out how on earth to string together a coalition in this mess.

Amram Mitzna's not celebrating too hard either. He gambled and opted to compete for votes on the Left instead of in the middle. Bad call, Mitzna. Sure, people like him and he's charismatic . . . but nobody's willing to entrust him with the security of the Israeli people any further than they could throw him. Besides, now he's stuck with a promise not to join Likud in a unity government. I somehow suspect that he'll be convinced to change his mind on that one in the next couple of weeks.

Sharansky and Sarid were both so disappointed with their parties' respective performances that they resigned. Oh well, I guess that frees up Sharansky's schedule a bit and maybe he can even come to Concordia. Yay . . . another riot to look forward to! As for Sarid, he had to realize that there's only so many members of Peace Now who he can convince to come out and vote. And with Mitzna looking to the far left instead of to Labor's traditionally centrist base for votes, Meretz lost a lot of ground.

The religious parties can't be celebrating too hard either. Actually if there's one bit of good news here, it's the decline of seats for the ultra-religious parties. Shas lost a good amount of support. This is a bit strange, considering demographics. On the other hand, what was lost in sheer number may be gained in terms of leverage for the religious bloc, since if Sharon can't convince Mitzna or Lapid to join a unity coalition, he'll be forced to align himself with the religious parties to form a government. And they'll demand their pound of flesh in return for support.

Tommy Lapid should be ecstatic with the rise in support for Shinui . . . but an offhand comment by Arafat about meeting with him and possibly having a chance for talks probably didn't exactly make Lapid's day. A compliment by Arafat is basically a kiss of death in Israeli politics, and it's virtually guaranteed that Lapid's popularity will suffer as a result.

Actually, the only one who should be thrilled here is Arafat.

Okay, I know that sounds crazy. Arafat has to say that he hates Likud and loves Labor. He even made a show of extending an olive branch to Sharon, knowing full well that there was no risk Sharon would actually accept, so it was a cost-free PR move.

But secretly this is the best possible outcome for Arafat. Because if a dovish government was voted in, and wanted to initiate talks, Arafat would have to bargain and make concessions and try to stop the terror. And he's not ready to do that. So Likud being in power gives him an excuse to continue his hard line. In private, Arafat did a little victory dance last night.

The fact that Hamas regards Sharon's re-election as a "blessing" should be enough to drive that point home.

Ironically, the only politician in Israel right now who potentially COULD give the Palestinians anything is Sharon. Mitzna couldn't. Because the only way a deal will ever be negotiated is if the Israeli people are convinced that their security is a foremost concern. They don't trust Mitzna to look out for their interests above the interests of the Palestinians. But they do trust Sharon.

What, if anything, can we learn from the election? Well, it's simple: Just look at the number of parties compared to the number of people. The old joke about two Israelis having three opinions must have at least some truth to it.

|

 
9:20 PM
The Raelians are now claiming that the first supposedly cloned baby, "Eve", is actually in Israel, not the United States as they'd previously claimed.

Judging by the horribly antisemitic character of the Raelians' writings, I can't help but wonder if this is just the precursor to some new way of targeting Jews. Call me crazy . . . well, no, actually, call them crazy.

|

 
7:15 PM
To all you people in London stuck at home because of the Tube breakdown, well, that sucks. Then again, at least you HAVE the Tube generally. Unlike where I live, where the closest Metro station is a 20 minute drive.

|

 
2:29 PM
Montreal/Israel in Brief sent a special election mailing that contained this handy table summarizing the election results:

Party	Ideology	Leader	Seats '99	Seats '03 / change
Center Right and Religious Bloc:	.	.	.	67
Center- Right Parties	.	.	.	46
Likud	Possibility of Palestinian State - Violence must end.	Ariel Sharon	19	37 / +18
National Union	No Palestinian State.	Avigdor Lieberman	7	7
Yisrael b'Aliyah	Palestinian State - only if democratic.	Natan Sharansky	6	2 / -4
Center-Right Religious Parties	.	.	.	21
Shas	Ultra Orthodox and traditional Sephardic	Eli Yishai	17	11 / -6
United Torah Judaism	Ultra Orthodox Ashkenazim	Yaakov Litzman	5	5
National Religious Party	Religious Zionism, emphasizing army service and the Land of Israel	Effi Eitam	5	5
Center, Center-Left and Arab Bloc:	.	.	.	53
Center- Left Parties	.	.	.	25
Labor	Resume talks on Palestinian statehood before end to violence	Amram Mitzna	26	19 / -7
Meretz	Withdrawal to 1967 borders	Yossi Sarid	10	6 / -4
Center Parties	.	.	.	19
Shinui	Separation of religion and state	Yosef Lapid	6	15 / +9
Am Ehad - One Nation	Workers' rights	Amir Peretz	2	4 / +2
Arab Parties	.	.	.	9
United Arab List - Ra'am	Dominated by Islamic movement, supports Palestinian state	Abdulmalek Dehamshe	5	2 / -3
Hadash-Ta'al	Formerly Communist party, supports Palestinian state	Mohammad Barakeh	4	4
Balad	Cultural autonomy for Arabs, supports Palestinian state	Azmi Bishara	1	3 / +2

While some of the party summaries are not entirely accurate, or are oversimplifications, this does give a bit of an overview of what the election results may mean for Israel.

|

 
12:02 AM
Send your support to York University! Daniel Pipes gave a speech today to a student group, despite every effort to stop him.

First the administration, caving to threats of violence, initially cancelled the speech. Then, showing great courage, they decided to let it go ahead after all. Then, York was forced to bring in tons of riot police in hopes of avoiding a reprise of the Concordia fiasco. It seems to have been averted, but not without incident. Leftists "occupied" a floor of the administration building in attempt to get the university to cancel the speech. And after Pipes left, someone called in a bomb threat to the building.

Freedom of speech means freedom for speech you don't agree with to go ahead as well. When will the Left get it?

York University could have waffled and cancelled Pipes' speech, but it didn't. It took a stand for freedom of speech and against threats and intimidation. And the students who invited Pipes could have caved as well, but they didn't. Kudos all around (except to the idiotarians who felt it necessary to try to shut down Pipes's speech).

|

 
11:23 PM
For everyone who keeps claiming that there's "no proof" against Iraq, this diagram from the London Daily Telgraph summarizes Hans Blix's report:



Via Damian Penny, who has this to add:

In a sane world, this would be more than enough to make the case that Sadam has not stopped trying to develop weapons on mass destruction, and that he never will do so. But some nations simply aren't going to be satisfied until Iraqi VX has been released in the New York subway, and Iraqi missiles are raining on Tel Aviv. (This being the UN, maybe that's the point.)

For God's sake, how many more "second chances" are we supposed to give these guys?

Right on. To that I'll just add that the strategy of these people has been to look fact straight in the face and make up a lie. It's like a guy whose wife catches him having sex with another woman, and yet despite the evidence staring her in the face, he tells her she's mistaken and makes up a lie so ludicrous, she believes it.

Well, the world has to start to trust the evidence. Saddam Hussein is winning by lowering expectations. Everyone expects him not to comply with the UN inspections. Everyone expects him to be developping forbidden weapons. But he's managed to put forth the lie that there's no justification for attacking his country, no matter what he does. What will it take for people to see the obvious?

|

 
11:13 PM
Bush gave his State of the Union address to the American nation tonight. I was stuck in class and missed seeing the speech, but CNN's got highlights, a transcript, and reactions from domestic and international sources.

It will be interesting to see the reactions from all the different places in tomorrow morning's headlines.

|

 
2:57 PM
Israeli election update: According to exit polls, Likud is estimated to have won 34 seats in Knesset in today's election, with Labor in second place at 18 seats. Shinui is in third place with 16 seats.

More definative results will probably take a few hours, as polls are closing any minute now and ballots need to be counted. But the Likud win is fairly predictable, and the key question may not be answered for days or even weeks: who will join Likud in a coalition government. Will Sharon be able to convince Mitzna to reverse his position and bring Labor into a unity government with Likud? Will he be forced to look to the religious parties or the far right for support? This is what will truly determine the character of the government and the policies on key issues.

Update: With over 90% of the vote counted, the tally is Likud with 37 seats, Labor with 19 seats, and Shinui with 15 seats. Other notable parties are the ultra-religious Shas party with 11 seats, and the leftist Meretz party with 7.

Shinui leader Tommy Lapid re-stated his desire to join a unity government with Sharon, but only if religious parties are excluded from such a coalition. Mitzna still hasn't wavered on his promise not to join a Likud coalition, although predictions are that he may change his mind in the coming weeks.

|

 
12:09 PM
MEMRI has an interview with Farouq Al-Quaddoumi (via LGF), head of the PLO political bureau and secretary general of Fatah's Central Committee. The interview, translated from Arabic, expresses that, despite what the Palestinian Authority tries to tell the world, it actively supports terror.

Question: "Do you support resistance within the 1948 areas as well [as in the occupied territories]?"
Al-Qaddoumi: "It is the Palestinian people's right to resist in all territories of the Palestinian land as long as Israel does not completely cease [its actions], and as long as it has no mercy on children, the elderly, trees, roads, institutions, and security personnel who have entered [the territories]... The resistance is legitimate; we are struggling for our national rights. It is Israel that bears the responsibility."

"... Even if there is a single shot in a month, it is good for us, because we want the emotional and social pressure in Israel to continue, so that a message will be sent to the international community that there is an alternative to third-party intervention so that we can begin to arrive at a just arrangement."

Question: "What is your opinion on martyrdom operations?"
Al-Qaddoumi: "We are fighting as a popular movement. We cannot stop every operation. We are not an army and we cannot prevent the martyrdom operations..."

Question: "Must a solution [to the Palestinian problem] come from America?"
Al-Qaddoumi: "No, not only [from America]. This problem was created by the United Nations when it decided on the partition resolution. The superpowers and the entire world are also party [to this]."

It goes on like this for a while. But the most telling quote is this one:

Question: "Then in effect your ideology is no different than that of Hamas."
Al-Qaddoumi: "We were never different from Hamas. On the contrary; [Hamas] is a national movement and is part of the national movement. Strategically, we are no different from it."

Now, this is old news for most people who have known for decades that there is no difference between Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, Fatah, or whatever incarnation terror takes. But Arafat likes to tell the world that this is not so. He likes to claim that his Fatah movement is against terror, even when attack after attack belies this.

Al-Qaddoumi made his position very clear: terror until Israel is obliterated. 1948 lines, 1967 lines, they make no difference to him. He just wants no more Israel - as is evidenced by his reference to the U.N. having "created" the problem when they voted on Partition in 1947. In other words, if those pesky Jews would just disappear into the sea, there wouldn't be a problem, right?

|

 
10:46 AM
I just love it how international journalists complain about Israeli restrictions on its generally free press, but say nothing about things like this:

Three journalists were formally charged Tuesday with slandering Islam's Prophet Muhammad and harming Jordan's reputation in an article that discussed the sex life of the prophet and his wife, Aisha.

Muhannad Mubaideen, 29, Roman Haddad, 28, and Nasser Qamash, 33, were also charged at the trial's opening with "destabilizing the society, propagating perversity and circulating false rumors."

The charges, outlined in an indictment sheet read out at Jordan's military State Security Court, are considered misdemeanors punishable by up to three years in jail and a fine.

Under the law, the verdict and sentencing are irrevocable.

Yeah, sure, good ol' freedom of the press.

|

 
4:06 PM
In his report to the U.N., chief weapons inspector Hans Blix sharply criticized Iraq for not being cooperative with the inspections:

"It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can," he said. "Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

In general, though, Blix didn't come down either for or against war with Iraq. It's one of those on-the-fence reports that every country will spin in order to fit with its political positions. The United States will claim that it is further evidence that war is necessary, and countries such as Germany and France can claim that there's no smoking gun, therefore no reason to go to war.

In short, this report changes nothing. And at the same time, it changes everything.

Today is a milestone. A turning point, if you will. With Bush's State of the Union address tomorrow night, and the Israeli elections tomorrow, today is a pivotal day in world politics. It is getting to be the time where every country will be called upon to examine its concience and cast its loyalties. The only question is, who will inspire more loyalty - Bush or Saddam?

|

 
11:10 AM
Israeli election watch:

With one day left (less, actually, with the time difference) until Israelis go to the polls, if you're still not sure what other parties exist besides Likud and Labor, now's a good time to find out. Or, if you're seasoned on the differences between Shas, Meretz, Yisrael B'Aliyah, and the National Union party, then you'll probably be looking for minute-to-minute details as results start to come in. Check out the following sites:

• Israelvotes.com is a site specifically for non-Israelis. With the latest issues, headlines, profiles of the major parties, and an area where you can place a "mock" vote.
  
• The Jerusalem Post Special Section has in-depth election coverage.
  
• Not to be outdone, Ha'aretz also offers an in-depth section. Similar headlines, vastly divergeant editorials.
  
• If you read Hebrew, check out the online special election coverage from Ma'ariv and Yediot Ahronot (you'll have to register for the latter).
  
• WUJS site explaining the Israeli electoral system, the parties, and a timetable, all in an easily-digestable overview format.

These are just a few places to get info.

While Sharon is virtually guaranteed a return to power, the real question will be which smaller parties garner more votes, and who will form a ruling coalition. The world will be watching closely for the results and their possible implications.

|

 
10:31 AM
Romeo and Juliet. Also by Allison Lampert in today's Gazette is a story about a production of Romeo and Juliet by the Arab Theatre Group that satirizes government interference in the arts.

Lampert claims that the play is significant because "in a city where the most highly visible Middle East protests have centred on Israel and in opposition to a war in Iraq, the play is a fairly rare public example of criticism by Arab students of society in Arab countries.

However, reading a little further into the article reveals a more important subtext:

Sitting at the back of the mezzanine, Tabba reflects on criticism by Jewish groups that many Arab and Muslim student activists today are quick to criticize Israel but never condemn human-rights abuses by Arab governments.

Tabba, a Montrealer who lived for many years in Saudi Arabia, said that such criticism is simplistic. He feels that average Montrealers of Arab or Muslim heritage are concerned about the situation in their countries, but prefer to discuss it privately.

Over the years, and especially after Sept. 11, there has been so much public criticism of Arab countries that denouncing Saddam Hussein in Montreal would be like "preaching to the converted," Tabba said.

They'd also be afraid of having their criticism used as ammunition to reinforce the stereotype that all Arabs are terrorists.

In other words, while Jews can freely criticize Israel, Arabs had better not air their dirty laundry in public. That's the message that seems to be getting across, and it is perhaps at the root of why it's so easy for everyone to scapegoat Israel; because Israel is a democracy, its conflicts are public and reported in the press. So it is more open to criticism. For instance, Israel's far Left, including groups like Peace Now, have been co-opted by the Palestinians to show "dissent" among Israelis and "support" for their cause. But dissent among the Palestinians? Dissidents have to hope that they don't get shot. In Canada, getting shot isn't a concern so much as being socially alienated from a community, as this letter-writer in the Link hinted:

I am constantly amazed at how some Jews, such as the ones in the CSU, are able to express viewpoints that differ widely from the mainstream point of view of their people. One could not imagine such dissent coming from within the Muslim community on campus.

This is not to suggest that we don't have them, but being openly vocal and critical of mainstream Muslim/Arab views is met with fierce opposition and intimidation. If the Jews think they are being silenced, they should see what it's like for a Muslim who has an opinion that differs widely from SPHR or MSA's point of view on politics and religion.

If the illusion of weakness is the price of democracy, then it is certainly a worthwhile price to pay. Because the alternative - a seemingly united voice to the outside world, but repression of freedom on the inside - is far, far worse.

|

 
10:08 AM
Hypothetical role reversal: Gazette reporter Allison Lampert asks what would have happened had it been Arafat, not Netanyahu scheduled to speak back in September.

For Laith Marouf, a member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, the answer is a resounding Yes. "To us, Arafat is corrupt; he is a criminal himself," Marouf said. "We can't have a double standard. We will protest criminals whether they're Muslim or Arab or Israeli."

[ . . . ]

"I'm sure the protest would have been loud, but I doubt it would have been violent," said Yoni Petel of Hillel Montreal.

"Let Arafat speak. I would love to ask Yasser Arafat a few questions. I think he's pure evil, but I'm not afraid of his ideas."

Although Petel agreed the pro-Palestinian organizers of the Netanyahu protest largely despise Arafat, he said they wouldn't have tried to stop him with the same zeal.

"Can you imagine (Samer Elatrash) standing up on a car screaming with a megaphone that he (Arafat) is a war criminal and we have to stop him?" said Petel in reference to the Palestinian activist's actions in the Netanyahu protest.

"I doubt it very, very much."

The hypothetical situation would pose a dilemma for Elatrash. On one hand, the Concordia student said he'd want to denounce Arafat's corruption; on the other hand, he wouldn't want a protest against the controversial leader to be misinterpreted as proof Palestinians are unable to govern themselves.

"I would try to stop Arafat from speaking but not if Hillel were part of the protest," he said. "We wouldn't want to lend our help to delegitimize Palestinian self-determination."

Afraid that you might be aligning yourself with the Zzzzionists, Samer?

As always with a purely hypothetical question, the answers are predictable - and meaningless. Because nobody knows what would have happened since the situation itself never occurred. Laith Marouf can make the self-serving claim that of course SPHR would have rioted. Yeah right. And while I know that Hillel would have never resorted to the kind of disgusting display that we saw from SPHR, they probably would have tried to go through proper channels to voice their displeasure.

All that is missing the point, though. Lampert's hypothetical is drawing some kind of equivalence between Netanyahu and Arafat. Netanyahu, a former elected representative of a democratic state, and Arafat, a dictator with the blood of thousands of innocent civilians directly on his hands.

Despite the Left's best efforts to villify Netanyahu, he is not - nor has he ever been - a war criminal. They don't like Netanyahu, they don't like Sharon, they're threatening more violence if Sharansky were to come to Concordia . . . the point is, they find it perfectly okay to use violence to shut down any speech that doesn't fit with their world view. If Arafat were to come to Concordia, he'd probably look around and decide it felt a lot like home. He might even make it his new headquarters. A whole new meaning to "Gaza U"? Hmmmmm . . .

|

 
9:56 AM
Get off the fence, Canada! In today's Gazette, columnist Peter Hadekel urges the Canadian government to revise its foreign policy and to take a clear stand on Iraq:

If the Liberals are all over the map on Iraq, it's because they've failed to articulate a clear foreign policy since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

[ . . . ]

A new foreign policy must start from a dual premise: that our relationship with the United States is of pre-eminent importance and that maintaining global security in the 21st century means dealing firmly with rogue states and terrorist groups.

The Iraq issue is a difficult one because it turns on the credibility of the UN inspections process. How much faith do we have in the ability of inspectors to find Saddam's concealed weapons?

So far, Canada has said international law and UN approval should govern military action against Iraq. But diplomacy can only go so far when a duplicitous regime is determined to flaunt its international obligations.

Soon, it may be time to forcibly disarm Saddam. And it will be time for Chrétien to check his moral compass and consider who his friends are.

He's not the only one with an opinion. Progressive Conservative Party leader Joe Clark also wants the government off the fence, but on the other side:

"The prime minister is being dangerously ambiguous as to what Canada's position would be," Clark said.

"No one knows where Canada stands. Our allies don't know, our citizens don't know, (Chretien's) own government doesn't know."

Canada should only support military action if it is sanctioned by the United Nations, Clark added.

Well, that sure clears that up! And yes, it's a strange political landscape when the Conservative party is telling the Liberal party to take a softer line on military action.

|

 
1:45 AM
Score one for the humans. Looks like Ray Kurzweil's predictions are still quite a way off. Garry Kasparov beat Deep Junior in a chess game.

Kasparov made headlines in 1997 when he lost to Deep Blue, a supercomputer built by IBM. Deep Junior, an Israeli-programmed successor, was billed to be able to beat Kasparov, currently the ranking world chess champion, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe there's hope for us humans yet.

|

 
6:19 PM
Janet Bagnall wrote an editorial in Friday's Gazette defending Jaggi Singh. The thrust of her argument seems to be pretty much a parroting of what Singh himself loves to claim: that he's an innocent victim being persecuted by the forces of evil.

Jaggi Singh is a test case for Canadian democracy. Can he exercise his right to freedom of assembly? Or his right to protest peacefully? Or speak freely? We're not doing too well on the democratic front if Singh is anyone to go by. The answers to those three questions are no, no and no.

There are several problems with Bagnall's argument, however. First of all, Singh's right to "protest peacefully" is not in question. But as everyone knows, September 9th was anything but peaceful. All the people whining about the criminalization of dissent don't seem to get that they can't excuse criminal behaviour by calling it dissent. Protesting something doesn't give you the right to beat people up, destroy property, or instigate violence.

Secondly, Singh is not a Concordia student, and the university is under no obligation to allow him to hang around campus. If every time he shows up there's trouble, it's perfectly reasonable to kick him out.

Thirdly, Bagnall is basing her opinion on the following claims:

I find it hard not to conclude that in some way university administrators and justice officials take Singh's views, and his insistence on defending them in public, as a personal insult. This is genuinely worrisome. He has not physically attacked anyone. He has not damaged property. He has not led a riot or a protest. He has exercised his rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and here he is, once again, arrested. This comes a little too close to a police state.

However, the police had enough evidence to arrest him. So Janet Bagnall seems to be simply taking Jaggi Singh's word for the fact that he didn't lead a riot or a protest, or attack or destroy anyone or anything. Last I checked, his say-so wasn't exactly credible evidence. He's made so many ridicuously faulty claims in the past few months that anyone who chooses to take his word on anything ought to have their head examined. If the courts find enough evidence to convict him of a crime, then that is the true test - not Bagnall's hero-worship of the man.

Singh was not arrested for the protest last Monday, which was mainly peaceful, but for his involvement in the disgusting riot of September 9th. This alone should prove an important point: nobody's trying to shut down protest, even when they disagree. They're trying to shut down violence. And it is the rioters who are seemingly incapable of seeing the difference.

|

 
6:09 PM
The NDP has elected Jack Layton as its new leader.

Do you care? I don't. *Yawn*.

|

 
6:06 PM
Daniel Pipes speech to go ahead at York University. His scheduled speech was initially cancelled, but the university reversed its decision two days later.

Cim Nunn, a spokesman at York, said that while Mr. Pipes attracts strong opinions, and students likely would protest against him, the university is a place for free expression.

"We wouldn't move forward with this event if we weren't satisfied that we were going to be able to do so in a way that ensured that everybody participating was going to be able to do so safely," Mr. Nunn said.

The public lecture was to take place at the Student Centre's restaurant, the Underground, but it was cancelled when a number of student groups expressed concerns.

In other words, York was afraid of turning into the next Concordia. It wanted to avoid a riot. So it initially caved to pressure and cancelled the speech.

Granted, the Middle Eastern Students Association spokesperson claimed that he would urge students to protest "peacefully". But then, the CSU and the SPHR claimed that the Netanyahu protest would be peaceful, too.

The tactic of the anti-Israel contingent to try to shut down any speech they disagree with is seemingly common. Daniel Pipes has been un-invited from several campuses across North America recently.

Pipes, best known for his site Campus Watch, where he monitors antisemitism on campuses, is persona non grata to many of Israel's greatest critics. And, as with Netanyahu, they've decided that any speech that doesn't fit with their politics shouldn't be heard, and they threaten violence in every instance in effort to get most of them shut down.

Luckily, some universities are coming to their senses. Université de Québec à Montréal reversed a decision back in December and allowed a scheduled speech by journalist Gideon Kouts to go ahead, after initially shutting it down due to threats. And now, Daniel Pipes will be allowed to speak at York University after all.

It looks like universities are learning, albeit slowly, that caving to threats of violence is to let violence win. Academic freedom can only exist if everyone has a voice.

|

 
5:44 PM
The instigators of the riot at Concordia back in September like to try to deny responsibility for their violence, by claiming that they were merely responding to Benjamin Netanyahu's presence and that they had "no choice but to riot".

There's two things wrong with this argument, of course. The first is that their allegations against Netanyahu, calling him a "war criminal" or other such lovely names, are mainly founded on bullshit.

But leaving that aside, the bigger problem with their argument is their failure to distinguish between protest and non-violent protest.

Over at the Link's site, commentator Bob has 198 suggestions of ways to protest nonviolently before throwing chairs.

|

 
5:41 PM
Today is, of course, Superbowl Sunday. And as the dish seems to be working (for once), I'll probably watch just for the commercials.

I must admit I've never really understood football. To me it's a bunch of oversized guys jumping on top of each other, but with a lot more commercialization than, say, Sumo wrestling. Oh, I know there's more to it than that, and I have no doubt that true sports fans would have a lot to explain to me about the intricacies of the game . . . but for now I'll stick to watching the commercials cause that's what interests me.

|