Monday, December 21, 2009

I am not a fan of science fiction generally or (to the chagrin of one of my very good friends) Star Trek particularly (I don't care if William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy are both Jewish). That said, I am going to try to "go boldly where I have not gone before" - a blog with all video links. Hope you find it interesting.

Please note that some of the video links may contain graphic or disturbing images

1. Sonja Schmidt - "Left Exposed" - you go, girl

2. Lee Doren - "How The World Works" - "cap and trade", or should I say "crap and trade"

3. Palestinian Media Watch - death becomes her

4. Palestinian Media Watch - lies, lies & lies

5. Proclamation Of The State of Israel - May 14, 1948

6. The Holocaust - an historical overview

7. Righteous Gentile - Irena Sendler

8. Killing Kastzner - the movie trailer


10. William Shatner - Oy Vey

11. Aircraft Engine Technology - prepare to be blown away

12. Want To Play Hockey? - Are you absolutely sure?

Posted by at 7 comments:

Sunday, December 20, 2009

1. Iran - As usual, lots of stories here:
2. Just A Completely Disgusting Story - Auschwitz 'Arbeit Macht Frei' sign stolen - The Globe and Mail. The following picture is from my trip to Auschwitz in 2005.


3. Spain - Why don't you sort out the Basques first, then you can give some advice on a much more complex and deadly issue - until then, mind your own business - Spain: We’ll make Palestinian statehood a priority for EU | JTA - Jewish & Israel News. Oh, and deal with this too - Spanish soccer fans chant anti-Semitic slogans at Israeli goalkeeper - Haaretz - Israel News.


4. Jewish Issues - There are some serious issues out there:
5. President Obama:

6. "Universal Jurisdiction" - John Bolton: Democracy Under Arrest - WSJ.com


8. Chanukah and the Maccabees - The story of Chanukah and the role of the Maccabees is more complex than we learned in Hebrew School. Here are some articles that reflect that complexity:








15. Well, What Do You Expect When You Put These Bastards On The UNSC? Libyans show photos of mutilated Palestinians at UN SC | Middle East. Bet they've got lots of pix of their own handiwork.
16. Let Me Get This Straight... - You don't admit that Israel has a right to exist, but you want the 1967 borders to be recognized - you do know that there was a country called "Israel" on the other side of those borders, right? Abbas: No peace talks until Israel recognizes 1967 borders | Middle East.

17. Copenhagen - Lots of news from here:
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Today marks the 65th anniversary of the start of the "Battle of the Bulge", Hitler's desperate last-gasp offensive in Western Europe. Don't bother with the ridiculous eponymous movie on the subject - watch the 6th ("Bastogne") and 7th ("The Breaking Point") episodes of the Band of Brothers miniseries. Then watch the whole miniseries - it's worth it.


1. One Fire "Out" - The Daily Gleaner did not publish my letter about the ridiculous column that was published last week. Thankfully, it did see fit to publish this excellent column by David Murrell of the University of New Brunswick:
The State of Israel Must Be Universally Recognized

In a recent op-ed column, Naveed Majid used the marriagedivorce analogy to suggest that the worldwide distrust of Israel is justified. The piece was called The Israelis and Palestinians are in dire need of a divorce, published Dec. 9.

Majid’s piece is mistake-ridden. In particular, he completely misrepresents the birth of Israel. It is this error that I wish to correct.

Majid claims that “...with British help, the courtship and shotgun wedding of Israelis and Palestinians began in earnest from 1940 to 1948...So, one day in 1948 to everyone’s surprise, she (Israel) preemptively told the property manager, the British, that she (Israel) was breaking off her relationship with the Palestinians and was also taking over the property from the British. She called it the State of Israel.”

Majid should read factual history. The Jews have always lived in Palestine throughout all of recorded history.

And throughout history, Palestine had been ruled by one imperial power or another — the Romans, Christian Europeans, the Ottoman Turks, Great Britain).

After the First World War, with the dismantling of the Ottoman empire, the League of Nations assigned Palestine to Great Britain. Britain, to its credit, allowed local government rule for Jews and Arabs.

The Jewish Agency, from 1927 on, governed Jewish affairs through elected councils. Arabs during this period often attacked Jewish settlements, so the Jews formed civil defence groups.

After the Second World War, the United States pressured Britain to refer the Palestine matter to the United Nations.

The United States was in a strong position to do so. The UN in turn formed the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP).

The Jews co-operated with UNSCOP; the Arabs did not.

(An aside: Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ian Rand was appointed as the Canadian representative on UNSCOP.

Rand was a native-born New Brunswicker, and played a key role in the writing of UNSCOP’s majority report to the UN).

The report recommended the end of the British mandate on Palestine and its partition into separate Jewish and Arab states. And on Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for a twostate solution.

At this point, surrounding Arab nations — Egypt, Syria, Transjordan — and various militia groups attacked the Palestinian Jews. During this critical period, Jewish forces repelled the attacks.

On May 14, 1948, the Palestinian Jewish Agency declared the State of Israel. But unlike what Majid claims, Israel did not achieve its independence on its own. Its independence involved supervision through United Nations administration.

Throughout Majid’s op-ed essay, he depicts Jewish Israelis as foreigners to Palestine, and Arab Palestinians as victims.

But ever since the 1947 UN vote, Arabs have consistently refused to recognize the State of Israel. Egyptian leader Abdul Nasser, who championed the destruction of Israel, fought and lost two conventional wars against the Jewish state.

In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, together with Syria and Jordan, fought and lost the Yom Kippur war against Israel. In between these wars, Israel had to defend itself against various terrorist attacks.

To this day, with the exception of moderate Egypt and Jordan, the Arab- Muslim community refuses to recognize the Jewish state of Israel. Militant Islamist groups — Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza — call for the liquidation of Israel, and still fire rockets into sovereign Israel.

Throughout the Arab world anti- Semitism predominates. Knowledgeable writers say that, with the upsurge in militant Islamism, Arab denial of Israel’s right to exist has been increasing.

It is said that, between two disputing parties, if one party refuses to recognize the other party’s right to exist, there can be no peaceful settlement of the dispute.

Naveed Majid, in his op-ed essay, neglects this point. Indeed, he claims a “divorce” is needed. But the divorce took place back in 1947. What is needed now is a post-divorce agreement which allows Israel to live in peace.

David Murrell teaches in the Faculty of Arts at the University of New Brunswick.

2. Another Fire Started - The Halifax Herald published a recent editorial about President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize in which Yasser Arafat was referred to as "undeserving" - which is about the least one could say about that corrupt, deceitful, murderous terrorist.


Two of the usual suspects wrote the usual condemnatory letters -
More balance, less bias

In your Dec. 13 editorial "Obama in Oslo: A prize and a fighter," you refer to the knock against the Nobel committee for being too early in elevating Barack Obama, and you go on to state: "If only imperfect timing were the main credibility problem associated with the prize. After all, fiends like Yasser Arafat have been co-recipients of the prize, although they were totally undeserving."

Your reference to Yasser Arafat shows a clear bias. It would have been more balanced if you had listed amongst the least-deserving such people as the well-recognized terrorist Menachem Begin, who was responsible for the bombing of King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 91 innocent people, and the massacre of Deir Yassin in April 1948, amongst many other crimes.

Furthermore, you make no mention of the equally undeserving Yitzhak Rabin, who ordered the breaking of the bones of Palestinian children for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and who ordered the total demolition, in June 1967, of the villages of Imwas (the biblical town of Emmaus), Yalu and Beit Nuba, my own hometown.

Is there no room for more balance and less bias in your editorials?

Ismail Zayid, MD, Halifax

Tell whole story

In your Dec. 13 editorial, it would be good to tell the whole story.

The 1994 Nobel Peace Prize was shared by YasserArafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. If Arafat was totally "undeserving," as you say, the same can be said for Peres and Rabin. Under Rabin’s tenure as defence minister, and later as prime minister during the first intefadeh, he said of Palestinian rioters, "We should break their arms and legs." Rabin implemented an "iron fist" policy during the intefadeh, when an estimated 1,100 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces (and 160 Israelis were killed by Palestinians).

One month ago (Nov. 12), Israeli President Shimon Peres condemned Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed the Gaza war investigation team for the UN. Goldstone’s report criticized both Israel and Hamas for war crimes, and singled out Israel for shelling universities, schools, ambulances, civilian targets and UN facilities. Peres described him as "a small person who is out to hurt Israel… Judge Goldstone’s report was one-sided and aims at hurting Israel and its image."

Goldstone, an internationally recognized jurist, is a Jew whose commitment to Israel is clear. He has been a lightning rod for those who support Israel’s right to have destroyed Gaza, killing more than 1,400 mainly civilians, and leaving tens of thousands homeless and destitute.

To be fair, if you look at one of the "undeserving" prize winners of 1994, have a look at all three of them.

Judy Haiven, Halifax

and here is the response I submitted and which I hope will be published

To the Editor:

If Ismail Zayid and Judy Haiven wish to criticize Israeli recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize for past activities, that is one thing. However, to ignore the statesman-like actions of these men, as opposed to those of the corrupt and deceitful Yasser Arafat, is something entirely different.

When Israel became a state in 1948, David Ben-Gurion used the Israeli military to forcibly shut down groups such as the Irgun and The Stern Gang. On becoming the President of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat did no such similar thing, nor has his successor.

Menachem Begin concluded a peace treaty with Egypt, pursuant to which Israel made the painful concession of abandoning the entire Sinai Peninsula (including uprooting Israeli settlements). Arafat never made any meaningful concessions in search of peace, nor has his successor.

Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres have tried to make peace with the Palestinians, but on every occasion, from the implementation of the Oslo Accords to the Roadmap, they have been met with violence. When Rabin and Peres publicly urged Israelis to support the peace process, Arafat told Palestinians (in Arabic) to murder Israelis.

As to Richard Goldstone and Gaza, Ms. Haiven makes it sound like the Israeli military decided one day out of the blue to attack Gaza – there is no mention of the thousands of missiles deliberately launched at civilian targets over an 8 year period. Further, it is obscene for her to imply that since Goldstone was Jewish that his report must be accepted unconditionally – does that mean that any acts of any person represent their religion, country, profession or culture? Finally, remember that Goldstone himself said that “If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”





6. The Brits - Here's a country that has always had a love-hate relationship with Jews and Israel

7. Speaking Of The Brits - Oh come on. Lay off the political correct crap. RubinReports: Britain's Top Military Chaplain Says We Must Recognize the Good Things about the Afghan Taliban - and what good things are they exactly? They do very well in blowing up religious icons of other faiths and forcing their extreme religious beliefs on others on pain of death - well, I suppose we could get attendance at religious institutions to increase.


9. Iran - The beat goes on....

10. The Useless Nations - Say no more - Pajamas Media » The United Nations: Public Enemy Number One



13. The World Needs To Hear From This Psycho -Ahmadinejad to get U.N. podium - - POLITICO.com







18. The Philadelphia Eagles - OK, I 'm a Dolphins fan - but since my wife is from Philly, I have to like the Eagles too - especially when they take on the Dallas Cowboys or the New York Giants. On Sunday night, the Eagles outlasted the Giants 45-38 in a wild game full of big plays - check out this video, and pay particular attention to the scintillating punt return for a touchdown by DeSean Jackson.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Saturday, December 12, 2009 - Motzei Shabbat

1. Idiocy in Fredericton - Some of you may remember that in March of this year, I accompanied Dr. Yossi Olmert to a variety of speaking engagements in the region. The first appearance was at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, NB. The event turned to be a set-up, from a less than genuine welcome by the Chair of the Political Science Department, to a lukewarm meeting from top university officials, to a completely out-of-control audience, to an unsympathetic response from the university when asked later about the events of the day.

The following are pictures that I took that day - in the last picture, I believe that the man behind the man with the microphone is Naveed Majid - read on......


One of the extremely confrontational speakers that day was Naveed Majid, who is apparently a consulting engineer who lives and works in Fredericton. It is clear that his perspective has not changed from March until last week, as The Daily Gleaner, the local Fredericton paper, published his column as follows:

Israel, the bride, was so hopeful for her future.

She had suffered terrible abuse in the home of her former partner, Europe. Her neighbours eventually learned of the Holocaust, and although reluctant to offer their own homes for her to stay and recuperate, the Allies did find her a place with Palestinians - tenants in a property that had been acquired by them in 1917.

So, with British help, the courtship and shotgun wedding of Israelis and Palestinians began in earnest from 1940 to 1948.

However, while Israel was moving into the Palestinian home, it became evident that cracks were developing in the arrangement. Palestinians were losing a lot of room and their complaints were falling on deaf ears. Israel wasn't going to let anyone tell her what to do and no one was going to abuse her again.

So, one day in 1948 to everyone's surprise, she pre-emptively told the property manager, the British, that she was breaking-off her relationship with the Palestinians and was also taking over the property from the British. She called it the State of Israel.

Fast forward to 2009; more than 60 years have passed since the fateful wedding ceremony. The Palestinians are still there, albeit in the basement and the attic, while Israel has the run of the place.

However, the behaviour between the two towards each other has become increasingly acrimonious.

Both have agreed they need a divorce. And, although the Palestinians had no involvement in the abuse Israel suffered at the hands of Europeans, its effects have resulted in her not accepting the Palestinians to live along side her, even though they've been long-term tenants there.

As in any divorce, the details have become irrelevant. It doesn't matter who did what to whom or who hurt whom more.

The best interests of the children - the future - must be the priority. And, in order for each party to go its separate way, there must be a fair and equitable division of the marital property.

To date, these two haven't been able to settle their dispute in the court of public opinion. The complication is that the self-appointed judge overseeing the matter, the U.S., has been providing welfare cheques to Israel since 1948.

Israel now has one of the most powerful armed forces in the world and one of the few with nuclear arms, although she doesn't like to talk about that.

The evidence is clear that she is neither weak nor helpless, and all the while she continues to receive financial aid.

Furthermore, past justices have hurt resolution efforts by allowing Israel to drag her feet on dividing the marital property (the two-state solution) while Israel continues to buy more stuff to put in the house (developments in the Occupied Territories) and build more rooms (the Settlements).

This situation only increases the acrimony between the parties. And as the two hurl accusations at one another, it is the children who quietly suffer the most.

The good news is a new justice named Obama has been appointed the case. There is hope that he will finally put the best interests of the children first. But to make a difference, he cannot take sides or show favouritism.

The judge must, for starters, stop providing those welfare cheques to Israel if she continues to drag her feet and refuses to share the marital property. This would show, both Israel and the Palestinians, that this judge is serious about settling the matter while he is on the case.

It has dragged on for too long and too many children have been affected. Unfortunately, they've grown up learning only to continue in their parents' increasingly acrimonious behaviour towards each other.

The risk here is that without significant progress, there is a strong likelihood that the acrimony will only escalate to unprecedented levels.

Hopefully, with the marital property fairly divided in a two-state solution, the future of all our children can finally be one that includes peace in the Middle East.

Naveed Majid is a consulting engineer who lives and works in Fredericton. He can be reached at naveed@nb.sympatico.ca.

I submitted the following response - obviously, the space to reply was very limited, so I had to try to be very concise - in any event, I will be watching to see if it gets published:
To the Editor:

Perhaps it is appropriate that at this time of the year, when our Christian friends dream of a mythical Santa Claus flying from his magical toy shop at the North Pole, The Daily Gleaner published the opinion piece penned by Navid Majeed. Quite frankly, I am more inclined to believe in Santa Claus than in his utterly nonsensical recitation of the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Space to reply is limited, but here are just a few inconvenient truths to the contrary:
  1. Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people.
  2. The modern State of Israel was not created unilaterally by Jews, and it was not created in response to the atrocity of the Holocaust but by a partition plan adopted by the United Nations. The Jews in Palestine accepted the plan but the Arabs in Palestine rejected it, following which armies from 6 Arab countries invaded Israel.
  3. What about foreign aid to the Palestinian? The billions and billions of aid that has been paid to Palestinians primarily by the Europeans and the Americans (estimated to be some $10 billion in the last few years alone) has largely been stolen by the corrupt Palestinian leadership (see “Arafat, Yassir” for example) or used to fund terrorism – it certainly has not been used to improve the lot of the ordinary Palestinian.
  4. The constant reference to “children” is especially deceitful. The Palestinian leadership have a well-documented history of teaching their children a steady diet of anti-Semitism that would make even Hitler blush.
I could go on (and on) but one should get the point. Shame on Mr. Majeed for his terribly distorted view of history, and shame on The Daily Gleaner for publishing it. Please let your readers know when you would like to facilitate an honest and open debate about this very difficult issue.
As I said in my letter, one could go on and on in tearing apart the column. One point that I only touched upon briefly was his suggestion that Israel came into being to compensate Jews for the Holocaust. This is a "theory" that I have blogged about before - namely, "Holocaust inversion", and it is a particularly nasty form of anti-semitism.

In the words of Melanie Philips, "...the key motif is a kind of Holocaust inversion, with the Israelis being demonised as Nazis and the Palestinians being regarded as the new Jews. Israel and the Jews are being systematically delegitimised and dehumanised — a necessary prelude to their destruction — with both Islamists and the Western media using anti-Zionism as a fig-leaf for prejudices rooted in both mediaeval Christian and Nazi demonology."

A more detailed analysis can be found in this excellent article by Manfred Gerstenfeld of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

And if anyone thinks this is not real - here are some concrete manifestations of this dangerous myth:


And as an aside, the Arabs should not suggest that they were blameless in the Holocaust. Robert Satloff investigated the story of the Holocaust in Arab lands in his book "Among The Righteous" - here is a precis from an article by Satloff in The Washington Post.

We should also remember that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem took refuge in Berlin during the war, and that there were Muslim divisions in the notorious Waffen-SS (admittedly from Eastern Europe and not from Arab countries). By the way, the Grand Mufti had a nephew that also had an impact on things in the Middle East - you may have heard of him - some guy named Yasser Arafat.

To close on this issue, I believe (and wrote) that The Daily Gleaner was irresponsible in publishing the column without vetting it more carefully (or maybe even scarier, perhaps this was what made it through the editing process). In any event, I think that the overwhelming majority of Canadian newspaper readers have little interest in the nuts and bolts of the Middle East - and when they see an article like this, written rather softly and talking about children and peace - they will think that the article is authoritative. It is imperative that we all watch what is published, and when we think there is a misrepresentation, deliberate or otherwise - we speak up in some firm manner. That does not mean that people with opposing viewpoints cannot express their opinions - it just means that advocates for Israel need to be vigilant and factual.

2. "Illegal Settlements" - The Illegal-Settlements Myth - this is another beehive of untruths. I admit to having some mixed feelings on the settlements issue in certain limited respects, but nowhere near what most critics express so freely. And if anyone really believes that dismantling the "settlements" will bring peace, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you - would you like London Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge or the Golden Gate Bridge.

3. A Reminder of the Importance of Chanukah - Many of my non-Jewish friends ask me about the religious importance of Chanukah. My stock response is that there are only a few additional prayers inserted into our daily prayers to mark Chanukah - but that it is a very important cultural festival with deeper meaning in other respects. Naomi Ragen sums it up very well in Jews are here to stay - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews, and here is a good article from Jonathan Tobin - Commentary » Blog Archive » A Festival of Light and Freedom.


4. Iran - Gee, I took 10 days off from blogging, and the Iran issue is still not solved! Here are some recent articles on the issue:

5. Professor Gil Troy - JPost.com | BlogCentral | Center Field | The double double standard - this comment struck me in particular:
"Israel and Zionism do not deserve special treatment - just equal treatment. The singling out of Israel, the demonizing of Zionism, frequently slide from the political to the pathological. The "New Anti-Semitism" comes from Arabs' exterminationist rejection of Israel's existence intensified by traditional anti-Semitic imagery and perfumed with human rights talk."


7. Where Will This Lead? Canada: Muslim leader objects to bomb-sniffing dogs on buses and trains - Jihad Watch Will someone have the guts to tell these guys to buzz off, or will there be some politically correct response? I'm betting on the latter quite frankly.


8. Globe & Mail Columns - Shall we say - "provocative" columns from the "Mop & Pail" - Or you can play the Jewish card - The Globe and Mail and PM and the Jewish question - The Globe and Mail - in my experience, the first column is typical for Rick Salutin, whom I've criticized before in this blog.

9. Berkeley's Hillel - A further review of this issue - Pajamas Media » Whither American Jewry and Berkeley’s Hillel?. And by the way, I never heard in response to my email to the national Hillel organization - a disgrace.

10. Canada and Afghanistan - The latest furor in Canada concerns whether Canada's military turned over detainees to Afghan security forces when they knew that the detainees would be tortured. This arises out of comments from a Canadian diplomat, Richard Colvin. The Federal Government denies the accusations. A large number of Canadian diplomats have signed a letter critical of the Government.


11. Copenhagen Conference - I guess that I have to give some links on this issue, so here they are:

12. Great Music - I recently purchased the DVD of the Eric Clapton/Steve Winwood reunion concert at Madison Square Garden.


Fantastic DVD - if you like Clapton and his time with Blind Faith - you must buy it. Below is the YouTube video for the Buddy Miles song "Them Changes", which they played in his memory - the DVD version is of much higher quality.

Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)