"Your Excellencies, the accusation that the Jewish state and its doctors are engaged in a racist campaign to steal Palestinian organs has no basis in fact or reality, and is nothing less than the repackaging of the medieval blood libel that was used over centuries to incite anti-Semitic hatred, violence and pogroms against Jews.
The United Nations cannot allow itself to aid or abet such blatant incitement to racism. Given that the Office of the High Commissioner carefully screens all submissions before deciding to publish them—indeed, our own submissions to this session were edited to remove certain words referring to regimes such as Iran and Libya—we are deeply disappointed that this hateful text was accepted for publication as an official UN document, and that it is now being distributed as such within the Human Rights Council chamber."
- Pajamas Media » The AIPAC Conference: Hillary Dissimulates, Bibi Shines
- Chesler Chronicles » Clinton Does AIPAC: In The Shadow of Anti-Semitism
- Pajamas Media » The Lynching of Netanyahu, Oren, and Israel
- Ron Radosh » Obama’s Position on Israel: Why Are We Surprised?
- Offending the U.S. government | Michael Harris | Columnists | Comment | Ottawa Sun
- Charles Krauthammer - How Obama created the Biden incident - washingtonpost.com
- Commentary » Blog Archive » Fomenting a Crisis Was Obama’s Choice, Not Israel’s
- Op-Ed Contributor - For Israel and America, a Disagreement, Not a Crisis - NYTimes.com
- No Compromise Over Jerusalem | FrontPage Magazine
- The Long Battle of Jerusalem - WSJ.com
- Pajamas Media » Obama’s Israel Ambush Backfires
- Belmont Club » Unilateralism
"Israel wags the dogIn your treatment of the “U.S.-Israeli rift" (March 19 editorial), you have not (dare I say dared not?) mentioned that important and not entirely secret fac tor in U.S.-Israel relations, Israel’s po sition of being the tail wagging the dog in its alliance with the U.S.
In a recent column, the pretty well al ways right Gwynne Dyer states that this rift will surely blow over because there is no way the U.S. Congress will seriously criticize or sanction Israel.
Another writer, Daniel Larison, says: “Despite the perceived insult to Biden and the U.S., in a speech at Tel Aviv University the vice president reaffirmed the ‘total, absolute, and un varnished’ commitment of the U.S. to Israel. It is this unqualified support that allows Netanyahu to ignore the ad ministration’s demands. Washington has opposed settlement expansion for decades, but no administration has se riously penalized Israel for blithely ignoring U. S. wishes — because even pro posing such a penalty is unacceptable in U.S. politics."
In the latest example of Netanyahu’s “thumbing his nose at the U.S.," as many reports put it, just before leaving to visit Obama, he reaffirmed his gov ernment’s decision to go ahead with the settlement building in Jerusalem that caused the rift. On top of that, his first speech in the U.S. was to AIPAC, the principal agent of Israel’s power over the U.S. Congress. Go figure.
Donald MacDonald, Sydney"
"It would be one thing if Donald MacDonald would engage in a meaningful debate about the facts of the US-Israel relationship in general, or the settlement issue in particular. However, his direct suggestions of some sort of Zionist control of the press and AIPAC's supposed control over the US Congress are not only inaccurate, they are quite offensive in that they only serve to reinforce long-standing prejudices against both Israel and Jews."
- A case study in Middle East morality
- Who Will Make Peace When Palestinians Are Divided? – Forward.com
- Commentary » Blog Archive » The Palestinian “Condemnation”
- On PA television for kids, Israel is only a fairy tale
- "Moderate" Fatah: Virgin Mary was "of the nation of Palestine" - Jihad Watch
- Why glorify the murderers? - Los Angeles Times
"Dear Ms. Cole:I saw the last short portion of your appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show this evening.Though I am not a fan of political correctness, I not a fan of Ann Coulter. Maybe, as Mr. O'Reilly suggested, she deliberately exaggerates to prove her point. However, I believe that one need not offensive to avoid being politically correct.Without having researched what amounts to hate speech under Canadian law, my take is that while Ms. Coulter is offensive, she is not preaching hate. If what David Ahenakew said about Jews is not hate speech, then what Ms. Coulter said is not hate speech.One thing that caught my attention was your comment about students being able to be safe and secure on campus. In light of personal experience on a campus regarding the treatment of a pro-Israel speaker, as well as my general observations regarding Israel Apartheid Week - where is the similar concern for the safety of Jewish students? Where is the outrage about the things that are said about Jews and Israel? Where is a similar warning letter from the Provost of the University of Ottawa?I would be interested in your thoughts.Thank you"
- Free Speech in Canada – A Fairy Story. « Coren’s Comment
- UPDATED - Ann Coulter's Adventures in Ottawa: So, what happened last night? - Inside Politics
- Ann Coulter need not apply
- Make that 'hurt' speech Roy Clancy Columnists Comment Calgary Sun
- Impartial? Impossible






Sorry got to your blog only today because I was sick at home nursing pneumonia. Re Ann Coulter's broohaha, CNN and several other news outlets painted Canada as a reasonable country that jails hate speech mongers. Too bad that nobody pointed out that there is a double standard. Instead an image of a 17 year old vulnerable Muslim child wearing a niqab emotionally but politely asked her what other form of transportation she could use since Ann's suggestion of using a "flying carpet" was not readily available. Ann's riposte was "use a camel" came across as crass and insensitive. Too bad that she took the bait and therefore lost her credibility. People got caught up in the rhetoric instead of understanding what her outrage is about. While I agree that Ann does use hyperbole to make a point, most conservative thinkers ( Canadians) will naturally gravitate towards anyone who provides a more reasoned answer. This is why in my opinion Ann did more harm than good . She should have known better than react to this set up. The Ottawa dean was without a question unnecessarily provocative sending her the warning letter,she could have on the other hand taken this opportunity to exploit the double standard that Canada employs with reference to the student at York was definitely promoting hatred in his blog urging everyone to kill Jews and to hate Israel. Instead she came off looking like a yahoo.
ReplyDelete