Segacs’s World I Know

For everyone who keeps claiming that there’s “no proof” against Iraq, this diagram from the London Daily Telgraph summarizes Hans Blix’s report:

Via Damian Penny, who has this to add:

In a sane world, this would be more than enough to make the case that Saddam has not stopped trying to develop weapons on mass destruction, and that he never will do so. But some nations simply aren’t going to be satisfied until Iraqi VX has been released in the New York subway, and Iraqi missiles are raining on Tel Aviv. (This being the UN, maybe that’s the point.)

For God’s sake, how many more “second chances” are we supposed to give these guys?

Right on. To that I’ll just add that the strategy of these people has been to look fact straight in the face and make up a lie. It’s like a guy whose wife catches him having sex with another woman, and yet despite the evidence staring her in the face, he tells her she’s mistaken and makes up a lie so ludicrous, she believes it.

Well, the world has to start to trust the evidence. Saddam Hussein is winning by lowering expectations. Everyone expects him not to comply with the UN inspections. Everyone expects him to be developing forbidden weapons. But he’s managed to put forth the lie that there’s no justification for attacking his country, no matter what he does. What will it take for people to see the obvious?

Bush gave his State of the Union address to the American nation tonight. I was stuck in class and missed seeing the speech, but CNN’s got highlights, a transcript, and reactions from domestic and international sources.

It will be interesting to see the reactions from all the different places in tomorrow morning’s headlines.

According to exit polls, Likud is estimated to have won 34 seats in Knesset in today’s election, with Labor in second place at 18 seats. Shinui is in third place with 16 seats.

More definitive results will probably take a few hours, as polls are closing any minute now and ballots need to be counted. But the Likud win is fairly predictable, and the key question may not be answered for days or even weeks: who will join Likud in a coalition government. Will Sharon be able to convince Mitzna to reverse his position and bring Labor into a unity government with Likud? Will he be forced to look to the religious parties or the far right for support? This is what will truly determine the character of the government and the policies on key issues.

Update: With over 90% of the vote counted, the tally is Likud with 37 seats, Labor with 19 seats, and Shinui with 15 seats. Other notable parties are the ultra-religious Shas party with 11 seats, and the leftist Meretz party with 7.

Shinui leader Tommy Lapid re-stated his desire to join a unity government with Sharon, but only if religious parties are excluded from such a coalition. Mitzna still hasn’t wavered on his promise not to join a Likud coalition, although predictions are that he may change his mind in the coming weeks.

MEMRI has an interview with Farouq Al-Quaddoumi (via LGF), head of the PLO political bureau and secretary general of Fatah’s Central Committee. The interview, translated from Arabic, expresses that, despite what the Palestinian Authority tries to tell the world, it actively supports terror.

Question: “Do you support resistance within the 1948 areas as well [as in the occupied territories]?”

Al-Qaddoumi: “It is the Palestinian people’s right to resist in all territories of the Palestinian land as long as Israel does not completely cease [its actions], and as long as it has no mercy on children, the elderly, trees, roads, institutions, and security personnel who have entered [the territories]… The resistance is legitimate; we are struggling for our national rights. It is Israel that bears the responsibility.”

“… Even if there is a single shot in a month, it is good for us, because we want the emotional and social pressure in Israel to continue, so that a message will be sent to the international community that there is an alternative to third-party intervention so that we can begin to arrive at a just arrangement.”

Question: “What is your opinion on martyrdom operations?”

Al-Qaddoumi: “We are fighting as a popular movement. We cannot stop every operation. We are not an army and we cannot prevent the martyrdom operations…”

Question: “Must a solution [to the Palestinian problem] come from America?”

Al-Qaddoumi: “No, not only [from America]. This problem was created by the United Nations when it decided on the partition resolution. The superpowers and the entire world are also party [to this].”

It goes on like this for a while. But the most telling quote is this one:

Question: “Then in effect your ideology is no different than that of Hamas.”

Al-Qaddoumi: “We were never different from Hamas. On the contrary; [Hamas] is a national movement and is part of the national movement. Strategically, we are no different from it.”

Now, this is old news for most people who have known for decades that there is no difference between Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, Fatah, or whatever incarnation terror takes. But Arafat likes to tell the world that this is not so. He likes to claim that his Fatah movement is against terror, even when attack after attack belies this.

Al-Qaddoumi made his position very clear: terror until Israel is obliterated. 1948 lines, 1967 lines, they make no difference to him. He just wants no more Israel – as is evidenced by his reference to the U.N. having “created” the problem when they voted on Partition in 1947. In other words, if those pesky Jews would just disappear into the sea, there wouldn’t be a problem, right?

I just love it how international journalists complain about Israeli restrictions on its generally free press, but say nothing about things like this:

Three journalists were formally charged Tuesday with slandering Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and harming Jordan’s reputation in an article that discussed the sex life of the prophet and his wife, Aisha.

Muhannad Mubaideen, 29, Roman Haddad, 28, and Nasser Qamash, 33, were also charged at the trial’s opening with “destabilizing the society, propagating perversity and circulating false rumors.”

The charges, outlined in an indictment sheet read out at Jordan’s military State Security Court, are considered misdemeanors punishable by up to three years in jail and a fine.

Under the law, the verdict and sentencing are irrevocable.

Yeah, sure, good ol’ freedom of the press.

In his report to the U.N., chief weapons inspector Hans Blix sharply criticized Iraq for not being cooperative with the inspections:

“It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can,” he said. “Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.”

In general, though, Blix didn’t come down either for or against war with Iraq. It’s one of those on-the-fence reports that every country will spin in order to fit with its political positions. The United States will claim that it is further evidence that war is necessary, and countries such as Germany and France can claim that there’s no smoking gun, therefore no reason to go to war.

In short, this report changes nothing. And at the same time, it changes everything.

Today is a milestone. A turning point, if you will. With Bush’s State of the Union address tomorrow night, and the Israeli elections tomorrow, today is a pivotal day in world politics. It is getting to be the time where every country will be called upon to examine its concience and cast its loyalties. The only question is, who will inspire more loyalty – Bush or Saddam?

With one day left (less, actually, with the time difference) until Israelis go to the polls, if you’re still not sure what other parties exist besides Likud and Labor, now’s a good time to find out. Or, if you’re seasoned on the differences between Shas, Meretz, Yisrael B’Aliyah, and the National Union party, then you’ll probably be looking for minute-to-minute details as results start to come in. Check out the following sites:

• Israelvotes.com is a site specifically for non-Israelis. With the latest issues, headlines, profiles of the major parties, and an area where you can place a “mock” vote.
• The Jerusalem Post Special Section has in-depth election coverage.
• Not to be outdone, Ha’aretz also offers an in-depth section. Similar headlines, vastly divergeant editorials.
• If you read Hebrew, check out the online special election coverage from Ma’ariv and Yediot Ahronot (you’ll have to register for the latter).
• WUJS site explaining the Israeli electoral system, the parties, and a timetable, all in an easily-digestable overview format.

These are just a few places to get info.

While Sharon is virtually guaranteed a return to power, the real question will be which smaller parties garner more votes, and who will form a ruling coalition. The world will be watching closely for the results and their possible implications.

Also by Allison Lampert in today’s Gazette is a story about a production of Romeo and Juliet by the Arab Theatre Group that satirizes government interference in the arts.

Lampert claims that the play is significant because “in a city where the most highly visible Middle East protests have centred on Israel and in opposition to a war in Iraq, the play is a fairly rare public example of criticism by Arab students of society in Arab countries.

However, reading a little further into the article reveals a more important subtext:

Sitting at the back of the mezzanine, Tabba reflects on criticism by Jewish groups that many Arab and Muslim student activists today are quick to criticize Israel but never condemn human-rights abuses by Arab governments. Tabba, a Montrealer who lived for many years in Saudi Arabia, said that such criticism is simplistic. He feels that average Montrealers of Arab or Muslim heritage are concerned about the situation in their countries, but prefer to discuss it privately.

Over the years, and especially after Sept. 11, there has been so much public criticism of Arab countries that denouncing Saddam Hussein in Montreal would be like “preaching to the converted,” Tabba said.

They’d also be afraid of having their criticism used as ammunition to reinforce the stereotype that all Arabs are terrorists.

In other words, while Jews can freely criticize Israel, Arabs had better not air their dirty laundry in public. That’s the message that seems to be getting across, and it is perhaps at the root of why it’s so easy for everyone to scapegoat Israel; because Israel is a democracy, its conflicts are public and reported in the press. So it is more open to criticism. For instance, Israel’s far Left, including groups like Peace Now, have been co-opted by the Palestinians to show “dissent” among Israelis and “support” for their cause. But dissent among the Palestinians? Dissidents have to hope that they don’t get shot. In Canada, getting shot isn’t a concern so much as being socially alienated from a community, as this letter-writer in the Link hinted:

I am constantly amazed at how some Jews, such as the ones in the CSU, are able to express viewpoints that differ widely from the mainstream point of view of their people. One could not imagine such dissent coming from within the Muslim community on campus.This is not to suggest that we don’t have them, but being openly vocal and critical of mainstream Muslim/Arab views is met with fierce opposition and intimidation. If the Jews think they are being silenced, they should see what it’s like for a Muslim who has an opinion that differs widely from SPHR or MSA’s point of view on politics and religion.

If the illusion of weakness is the price of democracy, then it is certainly a worthwhile price to pay. Because the alternative – a seemingly united voice to the outside world, but repression of freedom on the inside – is far, far worse.

Gazette reporter Allison Lampert asks what would have happened had it been Arafat, not Netanyahu scheduled to speak back in September.

For Laith Marouf, a member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, the answer is a resounding Yes. “To us, Arafat is corrupt; he is a criminal himself,” Marouf said. “We can’t have a double standard. We will protest criminals whether they’re Muslim or Arab or Israeli.”

[ . . . ]

“I’m sure the protest would have been loud, but I doubt it would have been violent,” said Yoni Petel of Hillel Montreal.

“Let Arafat speak. I would love to ask Yasser Arafat a few questions. I think he’s pure evil, but I’m not afraid of his ideas.”

Although Petel agreed the pro-Palestinian organizers of the Netanyahu protest largely despise Arafat, he said they wouldn’t have tried to stop him with the same zeal.

“Can you imagine (Samer Elatrash) standing up on a car screaming with a megaphone that he (Arafat) is a war criminal and we have to stop him?” said Petel in reference to the Palestinian activist’s actions in the Netanyahu protest.

“I doubt it very, very much.”

The hypothetical situation would pose a dilemma for Elatrash. On one hand, the Concordia student said he’d want to denounce Arafat’s corruption; on the other hand, he wouldn’t want a protest against the controversial leader to be misinterpreted as proof Palestinians are unable to govern themselves.

“I would try to stop Arafat from speaking but not if Hillel were part of the protest,” he said. “We wouldn’t want to lend our help to delegitimize Palestinian self-determination.”

Afraid that you might be aligning yourself with the Zzzzionists, Samer?

As always with a purely hypothetical question, the answers are predictable – and meaningless. Because nobody knows what would have happened since the situation itself never occurred. Laith Marouf can make the self-serving claim that of course SPHR would have rioted. Yeah right. And while I know that Hillel would have never resorted to the kind of disgusting display that we saw from SPHR, they probably would have tried to go through proper channels to voice their displeasure.

All that is missing the point, though. Lampert’s hypothetical is drawing some kind of equivalence between Netanyahu and Arafat. Netanyahu, a former elected representative of a democratic state, and Arafat, a dictator with the blood of thousands of innocent civilians directly on his hands.

Despite the Left’s best efforts to villify Netanyahu, he is not – nor has he ever been – a war criminal. They don’t like Netanyahu, they don’t like Sharon, they’re threatening more violence if Sharansky were to come to Concordia . . . the point is, they find it perfectly okay to use violence to shut down any speech that doesn’t fit with their world view. If Arafat were to come to Concordia, he’d probably look around and decide it felt a lot like home. He might even make it his new headquarters. A whole new meaning to “Gaza U”? Hmmmmm . . .