Segacs’s World I Know

Too busy to eat . . . sleep . . . think . . . breathe . . .

Speaking of the London Daily Telegraph, Barbara Amiel gets it right when she asks why the anti-war demonstrators weren’t also demonstrating against Saddam Hussein: (link requires registration)

The most revealing aspect of the anti-war march in London was what you did not see. You did not see any messages to Saddam Hussein or criticism of Iraqi policy.

These earnest seekers of peace, with so many signs denouncing George W Bush and Tony Blair, had nothing to say to Saddam Hussein; no request to please co-operate with the UN inspectors. Not one small poster asking Saddam to disarm or destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps somewhere in that million people there were some bravely asking him to “Leave Iraq and prevent war”, but I could not find them.

If this were a genuine anti-war demonstration, why, along with demands on the British and Americans, would there be no demands of the other party to the conflict – Iraq? Commentators on the march were taken by the good order of it. I was taken by the sheer wickedness or naivete.

[ . . . ]

In the end, under the guise of peace, this march was essentially an anti-America, anti-free enterprise, anti-Israel display. A similar approach appeared to have taken hold in the various other “peace” marches in Tokyo, Athens, Paris, Berlin and Madrid.

I agree with Barbara Amiel. While a great many people who protested over the weekend are genuinely anti-war – any war – on principle, the movement has been driven largely by interest groups who are vehemently anti-American, and especially anti-Israel. The motive isn’t to prevent war, but to bring the focus away from Iraq and its many violations of international security, back to Israel, the eternal scapegoat. Because as long as the anti-Israel rhetoric gains momentum, no real probelms in the mideast will ever have to be addressed.

The Canadian Jewish Congress has been granted intervener status in Hillel’s lawsuit against the Concordia Student Union:

A Quebec Superior Court Judge has granted Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) leave to intervene in the action filed by Hillel students against Concordia University’s Student Union (CSU). Since the outbreak of the current Middle East violence, the CSU has abetted a climate on Concordia’s campus that became increasingly hostile and intimidating for Jewish students.

In December, the CSU, with no prior notice, abruptly withheld its funding of the Hillel group at Concordia. Hillel initiated legal action against the CSU and CJC sought the intervention to support the Jewish students fighting the discriminatory disenfranchisement of their campus club.

I have no doubt that within minutes, we’ll hear some snide comment about the “powerful Zionist lobby” attacking the CSU. Good. Let them spew. The important thing is that this lawsuit a case of Jewish students at Concordia saying Enough! and it’s great that organizations like the CJC are getting behind them. They need all the support they can get.

To express your support, you can write to concordiajews@hotmail.com.

The London Daily Telegraph’s cartoon is a great example of a picture speaking a thousand words:

Couldn’t get hired as strippers, eh?

Two women, wearing only bikini briefs, skates and leopard-coloured body paint, braved -25 C wind chills Monday on the famous Rideau Canal to protest the fur fashion industry. The pair, members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, covered up their freezing assets by holding up a banner reading: We’d Rather Bare Skin Than Wear Skin.

They said the use of fox, mink, raccoon and other animals for clothing is cruel and unnecessary.

I bet they wear leather shoes, though.

I’m getting really tired of this cold weather. Coke cans keep exploding, water mains keep breaking . . . and last night a pipe broke in our house. Fun stuff.

The good news is the weather forecast is predicting warmer temperatures starting tomorrow, when it will go up to a practically tropical minus 3! By Wednesday, we’re supposed to be above the freezing point. I may even get my night skiing in on Thursday!

At least we’re not in the midst of a blizzard like the Eastern United States, or under water like Badger, Newfoundland.

Comments seem to be down on the site . . . again. I’m getting a bit fed up with Haloscan. In the meantime, sit tight, hopefully they’ll be back soon.

“Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you might miss it.” – Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

A.N.S.W.E.R. bans a Jewish rabbi from speaking at an anti-war rally: (via Steven):

Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder of the progressive Jewish magazine Tikkun, says he was “blackballed” from speaking at Sunday’s rally because he has criticized one of four coalitions sponsoring the event for spreading “anti-Israel propaganda” at recent peace rallies.

[ . . . ]

The local peace movement’s intramural spat erupted nationally Wednesday when Lerner publicized his situation in a Wall Street Journal opinion article. It is all the more striking because the San Francisco-based Lerner is perhaps one of the most vocal Jewish critics of Israel in the country.

Many anti-war activists have unspoken agreements not to publicly air their differences, in part because they feel infighting distracts from the more urgent cause of opposing U.S. policy on Iraq. But Lerner said the anti-war movement will grow in strength only if it is able to seriously critique itself.

He charges that San Francisco rally organizer Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, or A.N.S.W.E.R., uses anti-war rallies to blast Israel’s human rights record while ignoring Palestinian violence, a tactic that he characterized as both lopsided and anti-Semitic.

The article goes on to explain that while the vast majority of the anti-war protesters are simply against war in Iraq, Jews attending these events often find themselves in a “hostile” environment that is strongly anti-Israel. The pro-Palestinian cause has been linked to the anti-war cause, and those who support the latter and not the former find themselves unwelcome, and asked to keep their opinions to themselves.

Some democratic movement.