Segacs’s World I Know

These threats of bio-terrorism are just plain frightening.

The CSU is now planning a protest in support – yes, support – of the 12 students arrested and charged in connection with the September 9th riots against Benjamin Netanyahu.

Apparently, it’s not enough for the CSU to use student money to pay the legal fees of those arrested. Now Yves Engler, VP Communications of the CSU, wants students to come out and demonstrate their support for these same students.

This is a call to all those who protested in support of human rights and dignity, on September 9th, 2002.

Currently, there are 12 students who are being scapegoated in the university’s ongoing facade, in their attempt to avoid its own culpability in the events of September 9th. None of the students currently charged were in fact violent. The university is simply trying to show to its many lobbies that they are punishing ‘those responsible’, by identifying a select few of those who were present on the escalators, and by alleging that their protest inside their own school somehow constitutes ‘illegal assembly’.

[ . . . ]

According to Rector Lowy, all those who were present on the escalators are deemed worthy of punishment. Therefore, all of us who were present will identify ourselves to show that we are not ashamed in having participated in a demonstration, inside our own university, against one of the world’s most racist and violent men, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu.

What, Mr. Engler, one riot a year wasn’t enough for you?

Note the twisted logic that is being used here. The CSU and the SPHR have been on a campaign these past couple of months to try and downplay the riot, claiming that it wasn’t a riot after all, just a case of a few individuals making mischief. This disgusting revision of not-so-distant history has been going on for a while over at the Link’s website. They’re also trying to make the claim that this wasn’t the case of anti-Israel demonstrators rioting in a racist, hateful manner, but the case of “two groups facing off” – thus implying that the victims of the riot were just as guilty as the instigators.

Then, the CSU tries to blame the administration for “unfairly persecuting” those arrested. Never mind that arrests were only made after careful and exhaustive revision of video footage and accounts from the day. But in CSU lingo, anyone arrested is being “unfairly” persecuted by the “brutal” police.

Then, Engler tries to justify the riots by vilifying Netanyahu.

We’ve heard this before. It’s the same old song and dance. And I can’t say I’m surprised at the CSU. Disgusted, yes, but not particularly surprised. I just want to add one thing, though: if these people are so clearly and obviously lying about what happened here, in our own city, just a few months ago, why should anyone take their word on anything they say about events taking place elsewhere?

Anyone involved in the disgusting riot of September 9th ought to be ashamed, and punished. The fact that Mr. Engler and his CSU cohorts are proud of what happens should tell you all you need to know about what kind of people they are.

In an article at JWR, Jonathan Tobin criticizes the “self-righteous Diaspora lecturing” coming from people outside Israel who think they know better than the Israeli leaders how to solve the Mideast problems.

American Jews are fully entitled to their opinions about Israel, its leaders and its policies. All are open to criticism. In particular, Sharon is no more above reproach than his equally flawed opponents.

But what is needed from Diaspora critics is a greater degree of humility about their views on the situation in Israel. Most Israelis I speak to have discarded ideological cant in favor of hard-headed realism. Events have caused many who once were firmly on the left and the right to re-examine their beliefs. But many American Jews seem incapable of this exercise.

By all means, let us discuss and even debate Israel’s limited options. But let us have an end to the self-righteous Diaspora lecturing that Israel neither needs nor wants.

That’s all very well and good, but I don’t think that anything will stop people from having their opinions – nor should it. As long as people keep brainstorming, maybe someone will eventually come up with a new idea. G-d knows they could use a few.

Young fans all over the world can rejoice: the new Harry Potter book will be out June 21.

Charest calls Dumont a “closet separatist”.

Closet? Dumont signed the three-way agreement with Parizeau and Bouchard in 1995. He campaigned for the Yes side. He’s slammed the PLQ for being “too close” to their Federal counterparts. If that’s being a “closet” separatist, I don’t know what being an overt one entails. The defection of former Bloc MP Pierre Brian to the ADQ shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

That being said, Charest has a point. Far too many naive people are buying Dumont’s fence-sitting act. It’s time to call a spade a spade. He’s a separatist, and the PLQ remains the only federalist party in Quebec.

Damian Penny quotes a Jerusalem Post piece by Edward Alexander about intellectuals and philosophers and their moral justification of Palestinian terrorism. The article highlights examples of people from academia who have become the intellectual voices of suicide bombers.

This particular form of atrocity has not only failed to disturb the equanimity of our heavily petted professors but has elicited from many of them a stream of rhapsodic admiration, sympathetic identification (with the murderers, not their victims), and high-toned apologia. A few examples, among many–a philosopher, a literary critic, and a theologian–should illustrate the pattern.

The article gives examples. Ted Honderich, who actually said that Palestinian Arabs have a “moral right” to blow up Jews. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, who claimed that the 9/11 attacks were a justifiable response to “state terrorism”. And Karen Armstrong, who tosses out the comparison of Israelis to Nazis like it was water.

Needless to say, reading some of these quotes made me sick to the stomach. But Damian’s reaction was “Why I hate philosophers”, and I’m not quite ready to go that far.

Sure, I’d be more than willing to say I hate these particular people who call themselves philosophers. But anyone can bang out chopsticks on the piano; that doesn’t make us all Mozart. Similarly, anyone can use words and twisted rhetoric to justify heinous acts of murder. They might even get hired by a university and given a vehicle for these views. But that doesn’t make them philosophers.

To write off the entire field of philosophy – which, at its core is a basic search for truth, meaning, and values – because of a few bad apples is unfair, at best. It is precisely when people stop thinking that our world falls apart.

More Palestinian voices speak out against suicide bombings . . . sort of.

The headlines are jumping all over the fact that the Palestinians engaged in a London conference via video hookup denounced the terror attacks. However, a cursory glance at the wording used reveals another angle:

“The suicide bombings will not bring us peace, and confiscating of our liberty will not bring you security,” Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said. “Let us together reject extremism in all its forms. Let us together choose the path of peaceful negotiations.”

He said his statement was addressed to the Israeli public.

This is the classic Palestinian position. It’s been Arafat’s official position all along. Pay lip service to condemning suicide bomb attacks, but then redirect the finger at Israel with language like “extremism in all its forms” or the now-infamous “cycle of violence”.

The above statement wasn’t really a condemnation of terrorism; it was another chance to attack Israel. Exercising superhuman restraint, Israel didn’t retaliate militarily to the cold-blooded murder of 23 civilians in Tel Aviv last week; instead, it imposed such mild sanctions as travel bans. But apparently even that is too much for the Palestinians, who evidently would like to get away with terrorism scot-free.

Israel, understandably, is skeptical about the aims of this “peace conference” in the first place:

In Israel, Zalman Shoval, an adviser to Sharon, said: “The present terrorist-promoting (Palestinian) leadership is not a peace partner, and that is part of the reason why we didn’t let these so-called delegates go to London for this conference, because we think it would just be another charade.”

So far, it seems to be living up to that prediction.

Blogging has been light these few days, due to large amounts of stress at my day job. I hope to resume more regular posting soon.

Lieberman announces candidacy for a run at the Democratic nomination for 2004.

Look for comments from the usual antisemitic suspects about the “Jews taking over the world” in, oh, about 30 seconds.