...The propriety of a candidate’s pro-Israel credentials being the litmus test for his vote-worthiness remains a subject of fierce debate; many Jews understandably bristle at the assumption they are one-issue voters.
And yet it is fair to say that for Jews, Israel is not an issue like any other. Israel is the cynosure for the world’s oldest hatred. Its isolation in the world is growing. Canada and the U.S. are her only reliable friends. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s unequivocal support for Israel is therefore received with understandable gratitude by many Jews, who see Israel’s future in starkly existential terms. Harper, they believe, “gets it” about Israel. In his stalwart, principled stance, these Jews see courage and badly needed leadership in the battle against global anti-Semitism. They can be forgiven for asking whether the other party leaders will show the same.You will perhaps understand if I "bristle" at the assumption that we need to be "forgiven." Here's the letter I wrote in response:
Canadian Jews "can be forgiven" for asking whether other party leaders will prove as stalwart in the global fight against anti-Semitism?
Well, yes, but I'm not sure that we need to be "forgiven" for summoning up the requisite chutzpah to ask such a thing. After all, the current flare up of Jew-hate, which focuses obsessively and hysterically on Israel, the world's only Jewish state, is largely a manifestation of the global jihad. And, while the Jews once again find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being blamed for the world's ills by a genocide-minded megalomaniac--this time around a Shia, not a Nazi--by now it should be clear, especially on September 11th, that the Jews' fight is Canada's fight, and, indeed, the entire civilized world's fight, too.
Update: Mark Steyn crystalizes what we're up against:That being the case, all Canadians who cherish freedom and democracy should be asking other party leaders how they propose to stand up for Western civilization in this battle. And they should definitely not "forgive" the ones (I'm talking about you, Mr. Thomas Mulcair) who have announced plans to capitulate to the jihadis first chance they get.
I think the problem is that we defined what we were up against in the fall of 2001, 2002 too narrowly - and I think you can see that actually at the time of the first anniversary in 2002. We are in an ideological struggle... And we've seen that that ideology is very seductive to people who hold the passports of Western nations. We are a hole, we are a vacuum - and something fills the vacuum, which is what we see in Europe and to a lesser extent over here. And you can't fight this war even with the most brilliant military in the world because it's as I said in America Alone all those years ago - it's not my line, it's from Basil Liddell Hart, the great military strategist – it's not about blowing up their tanks and it's not about shooting their planes out of the sky – and nobody can beat Western militaries for doing that - but if you don't understand that you're up against this ideology and you don't target that ideology, then you can never win. And that's why I find this anniversary about as dispiriting as any of the fourteen since that Tuesday morning all those years ago.Hear, hear. It is particularly dispiriting in light of Barack Obama's ghastly nuke deal with Iran's wannabe genocidaires.
Update: Vote For Mulcair, And the Terrorists Win