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 >>

 
7:52 PM
I guess it's not enough for SPHR that most of the middle east doesn't have a free press. Now they're trying to control the student press at Concordia, as Link editor Steve Faguy explains in his journal entry, "SPHR takes over Link . . . again":

Allow me to vent. Being the editor-in-chief of a student newspaper, it's my job to see that everyone gets his/her voice.

But today wasn't about giving people voices, it was about silencing the voices of others.

For the second time, members of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights flooded our Annual General Assembly, the meeting where we approve financial statements and elect people to our board of directors.

[ . . . ]

And Samer Elatrash is voted onto our Board of Directors.

It's not that I disagree with Samer's politics (or Laith's or Adam's for that matter). And it's not that I'm guided by racism against Arabs and Muslims (though some might disagree). I opposed Samer's nomination because the last time he was on our board of directors, he attended only a single meeting, which he had to leave early.

As my colleague Julia Cyboran said during the meeting, the Board has no editorial control over the paper, and as such the positions are not political but administrative. All I ask of administrators is that they administrate. Samer has no interest in doing so (as he explained to me shortly after the meeting).

But now he's on our board of directors, until he's removed for lack of attendance. All to prove a point that when the SPHR disagrees with your editorial stance, they'll try to take you over.

I guess they were pissed about losing the CSU election, and decided to take it out on the Link. It's becoming increasingly clear how these groups operate. And it's a real shame - especially for the journalism students who would love to see the Link emerge as a respected campus newspaper like the McGill Daily, instead of the zero-credibility rag that it is becoming.

|

 
2:36 PM
Well it's official: spring is here!

Three days ago I went out in my boots, winter coat, hat and scarf to brush snow off my car. Today I started a walk in my lightweight spring jacket and ended up taking it off after a few minutes, that's how warm it is.

With longer days and nicer weather, people are coming out of hibernation. It's about time!

|

 
11:00 AM
The latest polls are predicting a possible Liberal victory in Monday's election:

It is the second survey within 24 hours pointing to a big shift in public opinion in Canada's mainly French-speaking province in favor of the Liberals.

The results show support for the Liberals up 8 percentage point from a mid-campaign CROP poll. Backing for the Parti Quebecois is down 6 points.

"Should these numbers hold until the election, the Liberals will certainly form the next government," CROP Vice-President Claude Gauthier told the Globe and Mail. "We might even be witnessing a wave of support for the Liberals that could go up as high as 50 percent of the vote."

All I can say is, don't count your chickens before they hatch. The Liberals may well win the popular vote - in fact, it's almost a guarantee that they will. But the PQ still has a very high chance of forming the government - even a majority government.

I've never understood why polls aren't released by riding. That would be a much more accurate picture of what is likely to happen on election day.

|

 
3:25 PM
Some groups are pushing to get Al Jazeera broadcast in Canada. The CJC and B'nai Brith Canada are incensed - rightly so. Far from being "just another viewpoint", Al Jazeera broadcasts blatantly antisemitic content on a daily basis under the guise of news:

CJC President Keith Landy, whose group closely monitors Al-Jazeera programming, said that some of the channel's material might violate Canada's hate-crimes legislation and federal broadcasting statutes, since it regularly engages in "blatant anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and the glorification of suicide bombers."

"We certainly don't want this to appear as a political attempt to prevent another view from being aired," he said. "But by granting them a license, the kind of stories that they carry could contravene the Criminal Code."

Arab groups in Canada have vowed to push for the channel's inclusion on Canadian cable service, saying that "it would broaden the horizon of the Canadian public" with regards to the Middle East.

What, the CBC isn't enough for them?

|

 
3:07 PM
No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Oh yeah?

U.S. Marines may have found weapons-grade plutonium in a massive underground facility discovered beneath Iraq's Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex, an embedded reporter told Fox News Thursday.

[ . . . ]

So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have found 14 buildings that have high levels of radiation, Prine reported Thursday.

His report noted that some of the tests have found nuclear residue too deadly for human contact.

The Marine radiation detectors go "off the charts" a few hundred meters outside the nuclear compound, where locals say "missile water" is stored in enormous caverns, reported Prine, who is embedded with the U.S. 1st Marine Division.

If this does turn out to be a nuclear weapons facility, then the situation was even worse than most people imagined. It was assumed that Saddam had an abundance of biological and chemical weapons, but nobody thought he was actually nearing nuclear capability (though not for lack of trying), since the Israelis destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981.

Was this strike to outst Saddam just in time? (Via LGF).

|

 
2:00 PM
Got another one! Israel took out a top leader of the Islamic Jihad in a targeted attack today.

This on the same day as an attack by the Al-Aksa Brigades and the PFLP in which two Israeli soldiers were killed and nine others wounded while they slept in their tents.

The situation in Israel is heating up unfortunately, while the world's attention is focused on Iraq. As both sides face the possibility that the Western world (namely the U.S.) will begin pressuring them to accept the "road map", I fear more terror attacks by Palestinian fringe groups who will do anything to make sure that doesn't happen. It seems like every time the United States gets involved in pressing for peace in the region, all that results is more violence.

|

 
11:05 AM
The Iraqis may have been dancing in the streets, but to the Palestinians this was a crushing blow. Most supported Saddam; many believed that his forces would fight and resist fiercely against American and coalition forces.

"This is a sad day for all the Arabs and Muslims, particularly the Palestinians," Nael al-Am, a Ramallah grocer who keeps a poster of Saddam Hussein in his shop, told the Jerusalem Post.

"I invested a lot of money in buying a satellite dish and a new TV set because I wanted to watch the day the battle for Baghdad begins. I was sure this was going to be one of the great battles of the century, where an Arab army would inflict heavy losses on the invading crusaders. I feel as if a dagger has been stuck in my heart when I see American soldiers strolling in the heart of Baghdad."

This was hardly the jubilant scenes that were filmed yesterday in Baghdad. And no wonder. The Palestinians haven't had to live under Saddam's brutal rule. Instead, the Iraqi regime has been funding Palestinian terror against Israel. To most Palestinians, Saddam Hussein was a symbol of Muslim resistance against Americans. And watching him fall - especially after swallowing the big talk and lies from their local media telling them that Saddam's victory was assured - was a brutal disappointment.

Anyone who thinks that something good is bound to come of this within Palestinian society is, unfortunately, delusional. To the Palestinians, this is yet one latest in a long string of letdowns from lofty promises that they believed from various leaders. Many saw Arafat as their path to peace, glory, and a Palestinian state on all of Israel's territory. When that didn't materialize, many turned to other leaders - such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad - all promising spoils. And these same people were cruelly misled by Saddam Hussein's big talk of being able to defend Iraq and simultaneously help the Palestinian people fight Israel.

It's a shame, because the Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve leaders who will tell them the truth, not lie to them while using them as pawns on a chessboard.

|

 
10:52 AM
They did everything they could to prevent this war, but now France is "rejoicing" at the fall of Saddam:

But [Chirac] said in a statement released by the Elysee Palace Thursday: "France, like every democracy, is rejoicing over the collapse of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and hopes for a quick and effective end to the battle."

His foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, added: "With the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, a dark page has been turned."

The French daily newspaper La Liberation focused on the causes of the war, saying: "The successful military campaign in Iraq can only reassure the powerful U.S. that its vision of the world must be the right one.

Everyone loves to hop on the bandwagon of a winner. The war ain't over yet, but France certainly seems to be changing its tune.

|

 
10:46 AM
Eggleton speaks out in defense of Israel:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the anti-Israel petition that was filed in the House on March 31 by the member for the riding of Quebec.

There is no connection between Israel's struggle with suicide bombers and Saddam Hussein's many years of non-compliance with UN inspections. Israel is a democracy and an ally in our campaign on terrorism.

The fundamental cause of the ongoing crisis in the disputed territories is the reluctance of the Palestinian side to accept Israeli existence, to renounce a strategy of terrorism and compromise, something that I hope will happen with the new Palestinian prime minister.

Israel has the responsibility to protect its people from suicide bombers. It is careful to minimize civilian casualties, and the allegations of Israeli massacres are fabrications.

Israel proved its commitment to peace at Camp David in July 2000 when it put forward a two state solution. Yasser Arafat responded with a strategy of violence. Terrorism cannot bring peace to this region, and Canada must stand by its Israeli allies in our campaign against this global threat.

This statement was published by the CJC as part of its regular reporting on issues discussed in Parliament that affect its constituents. It's nice to see someone besides the Canadian Alliance making a strong pro-Israel statement for a change.

|

 
7:22 PM
Here's more about the CSU elections, from the Canadian Jewish News. The print edition also has an opinion piece by Simon Bensimon of Hillel Montreal.

|

 
7:12 PM
Today's been quite a day, as the Americans and coalition forces made themselves at home in Baghdad, celebrating the end of Saddam Hussein's regime.

I can't help thinking of Churchill's famous words in 1942 though: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." U.S. forces are warning us that the war isn't over. And even after the guns and bombs stop, the toughest challenges still lie ahead.

Today was a good day, though, all in all.

|

 
2:00 PM
I may be a cynic, but I'm not alone.

|

 
1:58 PM
For most of the Arab world, it's a mantra of "Saddam bad, Americans and Zionists worse", as they watch in disbelief the toppling of the Iraqi regime:

"It is irrelevant whether Saddam is dead or not. His memory will live on to inspire many Arabs to stand up against all the injustices committed by the U.S. and its friends in Israel," Belqees Hamood, a university student, said.

"Saddam was not an angel to his own people but he will be missed since many Arabs see him as a leader who was not afraid to challenge the American and Israeli aggressions over Palestinians," said Juma Backer, a businessman.

[ . . . ]

"Saddam is a terrorist but he's not alone. Bush too is a terrorist but Saddam is weak and Bush is strong. That's why he has won, because no one opposes a strong person," said the 33-year-old Saudi government employee.

"How wonderful the world would be without Saddam and without Bush!"

This moral equivalence between Bush and Saddam is nothing new. The anti-war crowd loves to shout similar slogans during their protests even here in North America.

But the disbelief and shock with which most of the Arab world is watching the destruction of Saddam's regime is another story. It brings to mind Germany's shock and disbelief at losing World War I in 1918. Both disappointments were the result of controlled media and highly-successful government propaganda. Until this week, I have no doubt that most of the Arab states - especially those without a free press - were convinced that Saddam could and would win!

This is perhaps the largest tragedy of all. Because it has much broader implications. People don't form their opinions in a vacuum. They listen to the news and the information that they obtain, and all of that serves to influence the opinion of the "street". It is a lot easier to understand why so much of the Arab world hates America and Israel when we realize that they're being fed propaganda and false information every single day.

|

 
1:52 PM
71% of Canadians think we should have backed the U.S. (via Jerry at LGF).

According to a poll in today's National Post, 72% of Canadians think that we should at least have offered "verbal" support to the U.S.'s initiative in Iraq, and 31% think that we should be helping militarily too. Either way, these people think Canada's name should be on the list of the Coalition of the Willing.

A large majority of Canadians -- 72% -- believe Canada should have supported the U.S. at the start of the war against Iraq, according to an exclusive National Post/Global News poll.

The COMPAS survey shows 41% of people believe Canada should have given verbal support to the United States two weeks ago while 31% said the backing should have come in the form of both words and troops.

Still, only a slim majority, 56%, agreed with the U.S. decision to launch an invasion to bring down Saddam Hussein, while 34% opposed the attack.

The ambiguity between these numbers can be explained by the fact that the status quo changed - there's a difference between people who agree with the war, and people who think that we should support our allies anyway. Besides, 56% is still a significant majority over the 34% opposed. If this was 1995 and those were referendum results, the PQ would have long declared sovereignty, that's how strong a majority that is.

Politicians have been quick to spin this, saying Canadians are reacting with fear that our largest trading partner will be angry. But that excuse hasn't been supported by the poll results:

Asked to choose a reason for joining the war effort, 42% of people said it would be because Saddam and his allies are a threat to the West.

Toppling Saddam to stop Islamist terrorists was chosen as a reason by 15%, with 14% choosing "Americans are our friends."

Only 13% cited the U.S.'s position as Canada's biggest trading partner as the reason to support the war.

[ . . . ]

Opposition to the U.S. war on Iraq centred around a "pacifist inclination," according to Conrad Winn, chief executive of COMPAS Inc.

The statement "all war is bad" was supported by 31% of the people who answered a question about reasons to oppose the war, while 40% said better diplomacy would have solved the problem.

The poll, not surprisingly, also showed a major difference between anglophone and francophone Canadians. 49% of anglos wanted Canada to show more support for the U.S., but only 14% of francophones felt that way.

|

 
11:11 AM
And on the same note, the Globe and Mail reports that the U.S. is urging Canada to help rebuild Iraq. In a speech by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, he said that Canada's relationship with the United States is currently strained, but that we may have an opportunity to heal it somewhat:

"While we are disappointed that Canada did not join us and the other coalition members in liberating Iraq, now we must move forward and align ourselves once again in shared, creative efforts that serve the Iraqi people," he said in a speech to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, host of the two-day summit.

I can't imagine why Canada would turn down this eminently reasonable request. My questions are more about why the United States would offer it in the first place.

|

 
10:39 AM
Let the amends begin: Bush and Blair said that the United Nations should play a "vital role" in post-war Iraq:

"We are of course agreed... that there will be a vital role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq," Blair said after holding talks with Bush.

Bush used the same words, before spelling out their vision for the two remaining stages after U.S and British forces take administrative control in the immediate aftermath of war.

Analysts are saying that these promises are likely to anger many U.N. countries, especially in Europe, since Bush and Blair only see their role in a humanitarian capacity, as opposed to promising them the wider powers of administration and interim rule.

But shouldn't they be happy about this? I mean, this lets them off the hook, doesn't it? All that whining about "imperialism" and "colonialism" - surely they wouldn't want to take part in what they find so distasteful. Most of Europe gladly let the U.S. and Britain do their dirty work for them so they could keep their hands clean. (Canada has been, too, but that's besides the point). So why wouldn't they want to stick to humanitarian aid, while letting the U.S. and Britain sort out the post-war politics and security? That way, U.S. could continue to be the convenient scapegoat it has been all along through this crisis.

Simply put, countries such as France and Belgium feel left out of the party. Before the war started they were absolutely opposed, but now that Chirac's buddy Saddam shows absolutely no sign of being able to survive this thing, they've changed their colours. This isn't exactly a surprise - everyone predicted it. And Bush and Blair are likely to go along with it at least somewhat in order to gain "legitimacy" in the eyes of the world, and to try to begin to heal the giant rift that has erupted within the United Nations.

|

 
12:38 PM
Elie Wiesel spoke out yesterday in support of the war in Iraq. Speaking at an international youth leadership conference hosted here in Montreal called ImagineMontreal, Wiesel repeated his oft-quoted theory that peace is an ideal, but pacifism is the wrong way to achieve peace:

"The danger which threatens the world is terrorism; nuclear terrorism, chemical and biological terrorism," Elie Wiesel said at a news conference in which he acknowledged his views on the Iraqi conflict are paradoxical.

"I believe war is a blasphemy, but I'm not a pacifist. A pacifist is someone who would never bear arms. I would have fought against Hitler. That was a just war.

''The last just war probably was against Hitler. Since then we have had necessary wars, not just wars," he said during the IMAGINE International Young Leadership Conference organized by ProMontreal and the United Israel Appeal Federations Canada.

Wiesel said he supports the current military intervention in Iraq because he believes the "reliable sources" in Washington and Israel who contend weapons of mass destruction are concealed in the ravaged country.

"If not for that, I wouldn't support the coalition for intervention. I support the coalition. I am not for war," said Wiesel whose efforts to avoid deadly conflict in the world's hot spots have earned him wide recognition.

Wiesel, the celebrated author of books such as "Night", "Dawn", and "A Begger in Jerusalem", Wiesel is a Holocaust survivor who remembers all too well the effect that appeasement had on Europe during World War II. He also received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He claims to hate war - all war - but concedes that it is sometimes necessary. And this, he says, is one of those times:

The United Nations tried to disarm Hussein but didn't - or couldn't - succeed, he said.

"I believe that if certain European countries had applied as much pressure to Saddam Hussein as to (U.S. President George) W. Bush, there wouldn't have been a war," he said.

This was a powerful message, coming from a highly respected man. And it is a message that is gaining recongnition in many circles.

|

 
1:21 AM
I've added a search function to this blog.

Since it's free, it's not all that great, but at least now there's a way to search the archives. Which is good, cause they were getting clunky. It will appear on the lefthand side of each page, under the archives links, so check it out if you're trying to find that brilliant analysis of world affairs I wrote last month (hah!).

|

 
6:55 PM
I just got the book The D'oh of Homer, a philosophy book about the Simpsons. Can't wait to read it!

|

 
12:04 AM
Woohoo! HBO is bringing back Dennis Miller.

For the record, I think it's pretty low of HBO to cancel his weekly show, and then try to boost ratings by bringing him back for a "special". But on the bright side, the show's bound to be hysterical.

|