Segacs’s World I Know

And onto more important topics: I’m taking an unofficial poll. Chocolate or caramel?

So far among the friends I’ve surveyed, it’s 11 for chocolate, 4 for caramel. You can use the comments to vote.

A story in Ha’aretz by Amiram Barakat features an interview with David Harris, executive director of the AJC, in which he claims that the war in Iraq will end up costing Israel:

The leaders of American Jewish organizations are increasingly concerned the United States’ “debt” to its allies in Europe will be repaid at Israel’s expense, sooner than Jerusalem would even like to think about.

[ . . . ]

In other countries, this same rule results in the opposite outcome, and by this, Harris obviously means France and Belgium, where hostility to Israel is in direct proportion to hostility to the U.S. These countries are working against Israel in the pan-European arena. Harris feels that Britain and Spain are working to harden the American positions toward the government of Israel, primarily as they relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Leaders of the Jewish organizations in the United States – Harris included – place sole responsibility for President Bush’s March 16 “road map speech” on this group.

“The question that nagged at them after Bush’s speech was ‘Why now?'” says Harris. “Why, at the height of a war in Iraq, does the road map have to be put on the table? Does it mean Washington is caving in to pressure from our European allies? Does it mean that Washington, even if unintentionally, consents to allow the impression to be made that there is a connection between the situation in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Personally, based on my acquaintance with the president, the vice president and the national security adviser, I do not believe they see it that way.”

It’s tempting to write this off a a typical leftist tactic of looking solely at the consequences to evaluate the ethics of a situation. In other words, if the argument is that ousting Saddam is good for Israel, then pro-Israel people should support the war, and if the argument is that it’s bad for Israel, then the opposite should be true.

That, however, negates the existence of a right and wrong. And that’s a dangerous trap – one that Harris, it should be noted, has avoided falling into. He’s not taking a position on the war in Iraq; he’s making a statement, an observation if you will, about the potential dangers of its outcome. And I think it would be blind of us not to examine these things, within the context that states that it shouldn’t affect current policy in Iraq, of course.

The US has pissed off much of Europe with this war in Iraq. That’s a given. A lot of Europe may be looking for some sort of reconciliation, and it’s a very realistic possibility that Israel will once again get the short end of the stick. The minute the United States moves in and starts forcing reforms and agreements down the throats of two parties clearly not ready or able to accept them, the situation’s bound to worsen. Start forcing Israel to make security concessions, and a lot less of those suicide attacks will be prevented. Start forcing the Palestinians to play nice, and more will be attracted to the terror groups who offer them an outlet for their true feelings.

But I’m not convinced that it will play out like that. Bush did take office determined not to repeat Clinton’s mistakes, after all. Harris makes some valid points about the new geopolitical stage, but I think that it’s far from a foregone conclusion that Israel will lose out here.

Under each message on my blog is that little link that says “comments”. Well, it’s usually there – Haloscan has been kinda unreliable lately. But there are a few people here who have taken up the offer, and I have to give credit where it’s due. There are some really intelligent people making really insightful comments. To some of you regulars, you should start your own blog.

Sure, there are some really dumb ones as well. There are plenty that I disagree with. But at least there’s (for the most part) informed debate going on, and not just a bunch of name-calling.

Of course, now that I bring this up, some idiot will probably decide to troll me just for the fun of it. I know I’m tempting them bigtime. But I think that credit should go where it’s due. So if you’re here reading what I have to say, have a look at what some of them are saying as well.

Tex is clearly misinformed about Quebec separatism. He’s posted a link on his blog calling for Quebec independance. What are they putting in the water down under, anyway? (via Damian Penny.)

Speaking of SPHR, they appear to be moving ahead with their agenda, unfazed by their massive loss in the CSU elections. In what they’re calling the “Karameh Campaign”, they’re planning on issuing “demands” to Concordia’s administration.

Most of this seems pretty transparent. The constant use of “war criminal” is an attempt to slander Benjamin Netanyahu with a false allegation that they know they cannot prove. Their reference to the “criminalization of dissent” flies in the face of evidence that conclusively states that what they are engaging in is, in fact, the politicization of criminal activity. Their “demand” that charges and sanctions be removed from the rioters is nothing short of a joke (incidentally, if you have not yet signed the petition to bring these criminals to justice, please do so!)

The “inquiry into racism” was already called for by the CSU, which gives some insight into its true motives. However, with the old CSU out and the new CSU coming in, it will hopefully end up being more of an opportunity to raise discussion points, rather than a witch-hunt against the “Zionists” and the administration.

As for the third point, normally, students can use space to hold events, and a police presence wouldn’t be necessary if SPHR didn’t insist on turning these events into violent clashes.

Their “principles” are equally transparent: Their standard calls against the “criminalization of dissent” and the “discrimination against refugees”. Their reference to “civil disobedience” would be all very well and good, except for their stubborn conviction that smashing windows and beating up people in kippas consists of “civil” disobedience. And note their use of “in Palestine” – um, last I checked, Palestine isn’t a country.

Finally, perhaps most offensive is their attempt to re-define “anti-Semitism” as meaning “racism against both Arabs and Jews”. That is a racist attempt to twist two thousand years of history around and turn the Arabs into the innocent victims. There’s no such thing as a “semitic” race – that’s an invention of racists. Antisemitism means racism against Jews. Don’t like it? Write to the publishers of the dictionary. Nobody’s denying them the right to protect against other forms of racism, including anti-Arab racism. But their twisting of the term antisemitism enables them to claim to be against antisemitism, when in truth they’re perpetrating it.

SPHR is looking for groups to “endorse” these demands before presenting them to the university. Hah! If you’d like to let these jokers know what you truly think of them, you can send them an e-mail to express yourself.

Update: I’ve removed the actual text of their “demands” and “principles” from my site, because I realized it could be mis-construed that I was actually promoting the damned thing. Of course, as nothing is further from the truth, I took it down to avoid confusion, but I left the link up so that you can read it and see for yourself what they’re up to.

SPHR strikes again – at Carleton University this time.

Up until recently, Carleton has been more known for its party atmosphere than its politics. But then SPHR started a chapter there.

This latest controversy centers around the SPHR exhibit entitled “Carleton under Occupation”. The disgusting display included a mock graveyard with a huge banner reading “Made in Israel”, as well as SPHR members pretending to be Israeli soldiers setting up a “checkpoint” and hassling students for ID as they walked by. You may recall that a nearly-identical exhibit was staged at Concordia last year – my sense is they probably took the exact same display materials and set them up at Carleton.

Initially, the Carleton administration did not want to allow this exhibit to take place. SPHR began its usual howling about having its freedoms trampled upon, and at some point, the university caved and the display took place as scheduled.

But now, it turns out (surprise, surprise) that the rights of Jewish students to peacefully protest this display were shut down. In a news release sent out by Hillel / the Jewish Student Association at Carleton, it was described how students weren’t even permitted to so much as speak out against SPHR’s exhibit:

Four Jewish students arrived at Bakers Lounge in the University Centre at 10:15 A.M. with signs informing people of the real reason and need for checkpoints (e.g. “Checkpoints help ensure the safety of civilians”). Immediately upon entering Bakers Lounge they were greeted by the Dean of Students, the Head of Security for Carleton and the incoming President of the Carleton Univeristy Students Association and they were told that they were not permitted to display their signs. After much arguing and trying to win the right to silently protest the SPHR event, they ultimately had no choice but to give up (under threat of having security evict them). The Jewish students then decided to stand near the “checkpoint” area and cheer the “Israeli” soldiers on, thanking them for doing their job of securing the safety of citizens. As soon as the first student did this (very calmly saying ” Check those people well. Thank you for keeping citizens safe”), a Carleton security guard approached him and told him he could not say anything or he would be removed from the campus!!

After three hours of being silenced and back and forth arguing, the students were finally told that they could talk but that they would be closely watched for any signs of “provocation”. Clearly, yesterday was a sad day for Carleton University. It seems the hallowed right to freedom of expression is selectively applied in what is clearly a discriminatory manner. This is an intolerable situation and cannot continue.

At this point, my info is secondhand, so I’d be interested in hearing from people who were actually there about what went on. However, having seen the same exhibit last year at Concordia, I can certainly understand the desire of Jewish students to protest. If it was like the Concordia one, even students normally uninvolved in politics were overwhelmingly saying that SPHR had crossed the line – especially since at Concordia the exhibit was staged immediately after the Passover suicide bombing in Netanya that killed thirty people. The mock graveyard paying homage to terrorists while ignoring the true victims was not only tasteless, it was deliberately provocative.

And even more typical was SPHR’s tactic of demanding freedom of speech for its own viewpoint – through threats and intimidation, if necessary – while simultaneously preventing its opponents from exercising those same freedoms. We saw it with the Concordia Netanyahu riots, we saw it with the attempt to prevent an Israeli journalist from speaking at UQÀM, we saw it in the attempt to prevent Daniel Pipes from speaking at York. It seems that, according to SPHR, freedom of speech only applies to people they agree with.

(Hat tip: Steven)

More terror in Israel, as a suicide bomber in Netanya wounds at least thirty people, many of them severely.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack. The organization’s secretary, Dr. Ramadan Shallah, spoke to Qatar-based Al Jazeera satellite television in Damascus, saying: “This is our way of showing solidarity with the people of Iraq. ” The bombing, he added, was a “gift to the heroic Iraqi people” of Iraq and that Islamic Jihad had sent volunteers for suicide missions to Baghdad.

No matter how many times this stuff happens, it still makes me sick.

Today’s Gazette had a nearly full-page opinion piece by Michael “Bush shure is stoopid” Moore. Here’s the original link from the Los Angeles Times.

In the lengthy, self-serving drivel, Moore claims that his “mistake” (yeah, right!) was caused because he went to church the morning before the Oscars, causing him to want to cleanse his soul by saying what he truly believes, about how wrong the war truly is because people die in war, yadda yadda yadda. He went on to exhaustively try to explain why he chose to come out with his anti-American rantings at the Oscar ceremony.

We already know why he said it! I mean, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Moore craves attention possibly more than anyone I know. This doesn’t exactly make him unique in Hollywood, but it’s fairly clear that his book and movie sales and popularity are at an all-time high thanks to the media attention he got with his speech. And he’s not exactly humble about it either:

My book “Stupid White Men” still sits at No. 1 on the bestseller list (it’s been on that list now for 53 weeks and is the largest-selling nonfiction book of the year). “Bowling for Columbine” has broken all box-office records for a documentary. My Web site is now getting up to 20 million hits a day (more than the White House’s site).

The trouble with people like Moore is that they crave fame so much that they’ll say or do just about anything to get in the spotlight. Moore isn’t following the dictates of his conscience, he’s following the dictates of the media who are looking for a juicy story. If he’d thought that making a pro-war speech at the Oscars would have made him more famous, he’d have done that, too.

My favourite part was this:

We are continually bombarded with one fictitious story after another from the Bush White House. And that is why it is important that filmmakers make nonfiction, so that all the little lies can be exposed and the public informed. An uninformed public in a democracy is a sure-fire way to end up with little or no democracy at all.

Yeah, I guess that’s why your films are so “factual”, right Mikey?

This one’s old news, but I was talking Jon about how England changed their clocks today, which may have caused his opponents to be no-shows at a football game, which his team then won by default. I laughed, and couldn’t help but think of these guys, 1999 Darwin Award winners:

5 September 1999, Jerusalem – In most parts of the world, the switch away from Daylight Saving Time proceeds smoothly. But the time change raised havoc with Palestinian terrorists this year.

Israel insisted on a premature switch from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time to accommodate a week of pre-sunrise prayers. Palestinians refused to live on “Zionist Time.” Two weeks of scheduling havoc ensued. Nobody knew the “correct” time.

At precisely 5:30pm on Sunday, two coordinated car bombs exploded in different cities, killing three terrorists who were transporting the bombs. It was initially believed that the devices had been detonated prematurely by klutzy amateurs. A closer look revealed the truth behind the explosions.

The bombs had been prepared in a Palestine-controlled area, and set to detonate on Daylight Saving Time. But the confused drivers had already switched to Standard Time. When they picked up the bombs, they neglected to ask whose watch was used to set the timing mechanism. As a result, the cars were still en-route when the explosives detonated, delivering the terrorists to their untimely demises.

Somehow I can’t work up too much sympathy for that one.