Segacs’s World I Know

Live is coming to Montreal at the end of the month. Woohoo! Gotta get my tix.

Meryl Yourish isn’t impressed by the media’s double-standard about the “Hudna” and how it has treated the events of the last week:

Oh, there’s also this charming headline from Reuters:

Palestinians Offer Truce Extension, Israel Says No

Wow, tough crowd. Why would Israel refuse to extend a truce?

[ . . . ]

Oh, that’s why. The Israelis are asking the pals to actually stick to the terms of the agreement, not some lame “truce” that isn’t even holding. Because the pals are supposed to dismantle the terror groups as part of the road map, and nobody seems to be holding them to that. But hey, are the pals serious about that truce agreement?

I couldn’t agree more.

She also notes that Israel seems to be getting the blame for “derailing” the peace process, but there’s virtually no mention of the latest Palestinian shooting attack on a woman and her three children. Instead, Israel is being criticized for only releasing Palestinian prisoners that have not been directly responsible for murdering innocent Israelis.

See, what nobody seems to realize is that “cease-fire” is not the proper translation of “Hudna”. Firstly, with 170 attacks since the June 29th declaration, one would have to be blind, deaf, and just plain stupid to call this an actual cease-fire. It’s a media relations ploy, plain and simple. The Palestinians sensed that the Western world was getting tired of their violent tactics, so they decided to claim to have called a cease-fire while continuing attacks like normal, as this makes painfully clear. Secondly, the “hudna” isn’t a cease-fire with the aim of peace, but with the aim of re-armement and reorganization in order to carry out even deadlier attacks as soon as it expires.

Israel was supposed to begin dismantling settlements, release prisoners, ease checkpoints, and pull the IDF out of Palestinian-controlled zones. The Palestinians were supposed to stop violent attacks and work towards dismantling the terrorist organizations. With all the focus on Israel’s non-compliance, it at least has made steps. What steps have been made, exactly, on the Palestinian side?

There’s been a terrorist bombing in Indonesia that killed 14 people and wounded over 150. And it was most likely the radical Jemaah Islamia terrorist group that was responsible:

Tuesday’s attack coincided with high-profile trials of suspected Islamic militants on bomb-related charges — including that of Abu Bakar Bashir, an influential cleric in the world’s most populous Muslim nation.

He is accused of leading the Jemaah Islamiah network blamed for a series of attacks on Western targets including October’s Bali bombings that killed 202 people, most of them foreign tourists.

When Bali happened, people were shocked. Today, maybe the world is a little less shocked. And if you ask me, that’s a bad thing.

This is good for a chuckle or two. Look closely. (Hat tip: Tom).

Sitting here eating chocolate chips and wondering, seriously, if I may be addicted to them.

Everyone’s blogging these days it seems . . . even our next Prime Minister.

Belgium has dramatically restricted its war crimes law, finally realizing that it was being abused for political purposes:

The original 1993 law allowed Belgian courts to hear war crimes cases regardless of where the crimes allegedly occurred or the nationalities of those involved. However, relations with Washington were strained after complaints were filed against Mr. Bush, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and others because of the war in Iraq.

[ . . . ]

The revised law drops the “universal jurisdiction” claim of the 1993 original version, which also resulted in politically embarrassing complaints against British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The new law allows cases to be brought only if the victim or suspect is a Belgian citizen or long-term resident at the time of the alleged crime. It also guarantees diplomatic immunity for world leaders and other government officials visiting Belgium.

Belgium’s law may have been well-intentioned at first, but unfortunately it became a venue for the world’s worst despots to file complaints against anyone they didn’t like. Belgium has done the sensible thing here, for once.

More proof that Arafat is still calling the shots among the terrorist groups (literally):

“Neither I nor Zakariya received orders from Arafat to make a cease-fire with the Israelis,” said Atta Abu Rumeyli, the Fatah leader in the Jenin refugee camp and one of the city’s strongmen. Abu Rumeyli was referring to Zakariya Zubeidi, chief of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank.

“Arafat,” Abu Rumeyli continued, “does not believe the struggle should end. We have to continue to fight for our land.”

Fatah’s Jenin organization was surprisingly disbanded on Tuesday night, and many of its fighters were incorporated into the renegade Aksa Martyrs Brigades northern division, which is headed by Zubeidi.

And the media stubbornly continues to insist on denying Arafat’s direct encouragement of terrorism.

Mike Silverman is incensed at Bush, and I don’t blame him:

I guess I was a bit too smitten with Bush’s policy on Iraq and Israel such that I gave him a pass on domestic policy.

No more. I am wary, angry, and frustrated with the President now in a way that I have not been since September 10th, 2001.

Since matrimony is the theme of the day, let me say that the honeymoon is over and I want a divorce, Mr. President!

And Andrew Sullivan rings in on what this really means, which is all-out discrimination:

It seems clear to me that we are now headed toward a terrible and possibly definitive tempest on the issue of gay equality. President Bush said yesterday, in so many words, that he is considering amending the constitution to deny gays legal equality in their relationships – indeed to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the sacred words of the founding document.

In the meantime, comments over at Daimnation are going from the absurd to the ridiculous. Arguments like this one:

Aren’t religious views based on divine revelation — or, if one prefers, thousands of years of reflection and lived human experience –at least as compelling as ‘what harm could it do’ or ‘studies show that…’?

Ah, the old “the scientific method can’t possibly compete with this booming voice in my head” argument. Or this one:

The same is true for gay marriage: what gay activists don’t understand is that they can call themselves married all they want, but they will not really BE married, in the only eyes that count, the eyes of God, who created the sacrament. Gay men and women are equal under the law, but their unions are not.

Here’s a thought: maybe they don’t all believe in the same god who you suggest would relegate them to second-class status! Maybe they believe in another interpretation of religion, another religion altogether, or *gasp!* no religion at all! And maybe they’re tired of having laws passed that deny them that freedom.

Isn’t the concept of “rights” itself religious? Even the Declaration of Independence says that rights are a gift from the creator. What natural entity has the authority to grant (or withdraw) basic human rights? If human rights are subject to human whims, they can hardly be called fundamental.

The old “only god can give us rights” argument. Hmmm. I guess we should take away the right to vote from Blacks, cause back when that was changed, people believed it went against god too.

The real reason behind the opposition to gay marriage is the widespread belief, supported by nearly a century of psychiatric research, that homosexuality is an inherently dysfunctional orientation influenced by a variety of social and psychological factors during childhood and/or adolescence.

You know, the only “dysfunction” is assuming that someone who isn’t like you is evil, wrong, or psychologically messed up. Maybe the teen suicide rates and the rates of “dysfunction” among homosexuals would be lessened if they weren’t one of the only minorities that it was still acceptable to persecute and oppress. Ever consider that?

Here’s the doozy of all arguments:

When I say gays shouldn’t (actually, can’t) marry, I am imposing my religious viewpoints on a minority. When they insist they should be allowed to marry, they are imposing their secular philosophy on me. Why does secularity trump religion? Because you are not religious? Oh, that’s fair.

Yeah, cause gays getting married is really gonna restrict your human rights. Suuuuuure. I find it amazing when people claim that it’s wrong to infringe on their “right” to infringe upon the rights of others. Kinda like the WTO protestors who claimed that it was an “infringement on their freedom of speech” to arrest them for smashing windows and trying to infringe on the freedom of speech of the people inside the conference. Hmmmm. Yes, I’m detecting a common theme of hypocricy here.