Since the WikiLeaks have tended to bolter Israel's case re Iran (revealing, as they do, that the Arabs are every bit as concerned about a nuclear Ayatollah as are the Jews), Harpoon Siddiqui has stepped into the fray to try to get back to the Slamolefty default setting/broken record--i.e. that Israel, dammit, is the regional bad guy. To do so he hauls out the heaviest of lefty heavy Hitlers, er, hitters:
...American intellectual Noam Chomsky cites a Brookings Institution poll that 80 per cent of Arabs consider Israel as the main threat, followed by the U.S. at 77 per cent. Only 10 per cent rate Iran as a danger. In fact, 57 per cent want Iran to have nuclear weapons as a counterweight to American and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
There’s no mention of any of this in the leaks or in the comments of Clinton or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Chomsky: “What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and the Israeli political leadership . . . When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts — Clinton and the media — have drawn.”
This is not to say that Arab rulers are not concerned about a resurgent Iran, especially the dominating role it was gifted in Iraq by the American invasion and occupation. But it is doubtful, says Andoni, that the Arab rulers “dare follow the American line completely, particularly if this includes a strike against Iran.”
If they did, they'd risk popular revolts.
If they don't, they'd risk Shiite supremacy. You tell me which is the scarier prospect. As for why the WikiLeaks don't mention the Chomsky-cited stats: well, why the heck would they? Clearly, such crunchy numbers are relevant only to the Chomskys and Siddiquis of the world--those who are determined to make Israel the bad guy no matter what and in defiance of all logic and common sense.
Well-intentioned but short-sighted Jews in Canada backed the establishment of the "human rights" system and state censorship, little realizing that such demonstrably anti-democratic endeavours would end up biting them--the Jews--in the buttski. Similarly, short-sighted Israelis backed the establishment of an International Court of "Justice," little realizing, well, ditto:
The strategy of exploiting legal processes to attack Israel's legitimacy was developed at the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, whose final declaration called for the establishment of a "war-crimes tribunal" against Israel. Since then, NGOs have filed lawsuits throughout Europe and North America to have Israeli officials arrested and imprisoned as "war criminals." They were also heavily involved in the one-sided 2004 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that declared Israel's security barrier to be "illegal." The primary goals of all these cases are to play havoc with normal diplomatic relations and to criminalize all methods used by Israel to protect its citizens from attack.
The latest battleground in the political war is the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands—established in the late 1990s as a court of last resort to punish the very worst cases of mass murder and torture. Israel was a strong backer of the ICC until it was co-opted by Arab and Islamic regimes, which succeeded in changing the Court's statute to eliminate terrorism as an offense and, at the same time, to define Israeli settlement activity as an international crime. Israel then withdrew as a party to the Court, but the Arab League and prominent NGOs like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have continued to bombard the tribunal with claims of alleged Israeli "war crimes" and have pressured ICC officials to arrest Israelis...
The lesson here: open your eyes, think things through, and don't back crap in the first place if you want to have any hope of not ending up in deep doo doo.
An open letter on themuslim.ca site urges the Canadian government to compel shopping malls to provide prayer rooms for Muslims. Of course, the letter-writer has been clever enough to couch it in Imam Rauf-speak--i.e. that such obviously Islamic amenities would serve the cause of "multi-faith" harmony:
...While the physical needs have been met to a larger extent, the spiritual needs have been disregarded and neglected at these public places.
As hospitals and airports have multi-faith centres to meet the needs of people, shopping centres have failed to pay attention to this vital and important area.
People who are responsible of running these places ought to be reminded about the countless benefits of having multi-faith chapels at shopping centers.
This initiative will generate more revenue by making these places more user-friendly and the atmosphere welcoming to people of diverse ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. We live in a multicultural society after all where the entire world has come together to form a country we all call home.
Having basic prayer areas will allow the faithful consumer to stay little longer in the mall and shop in peace without having to leave early in order to find a chapel, a mosque or synagogue.
A large percentage of consumers who frequently shop at these places are Muslims whose religious requirement is to pray five times a day. Having a larger Muslim population in the GTAA [Greater Toronto Area] that is rapidly growing is something that shopping mall executives should keep in mind.
Other faithful communities also have to commit to their daily rituals such as the Orthodox Jews who have to pray 3 times a day.
Having a multi-faith center which would consist of a quite room will revolutionize the shopping mall industry. It does not even require a lot of money to organize such places. Just a basic room in the middle of the room will do the job.
Multi faith centres will certainly increase the clientele at shopping centers with people who would otherwise have not come to shop or would come in a hasty and quick manner so that they would not miss their prayers.
It will also show that shopping malls do not only care about the almighty dollar. It also cares about the spiritual needs of its customers and therefore respecting them by providing them with such facilities...
Nah. I think shopping malls should stick to what they do best--selling stuff, not sharia. Nice try, though, fella.
Fattening, too.
Update: Here's Palladin Phil's write up.
Santa baby,
Slip some freedom into the land.
It's grand.
It used to animate the state.
Santa baby,
And hurry to Trudeaupia today.
Santa baby, "denormalize" the HRCs too,
They're through.
They do not belong here.
Santa baby, and hurry to Trudeaupia today.
Think of all the crap we're taught.
Think of all the bollocks and the tommyrot.
Multicult, diversity--they've robbed us of our liberty.
(Boo doo be doo)
Santa honey, I want free thought and really that's
Not a lot.
I've been a fighter all year.
Santa baby, and hurry to Trudeaupia today.
Santa cutie, there's one thing that does make me flip--
Censorship.
It'll end our Western civ.
Santa cutie, and hurry to Trudeaupia today.
Come and see our "virtue" show.
Come and give Ms. Lynch and gang the old heave-ho.
The Virtue Crew hectors and barks.
Reminds me of Herr Karl Marx.
(Boo doo bee doo)
Santa baby, forgot to mention one thing that's mean--
Sec. 13.
Thought law's so gotta go.
Santa baby, and hurry to Trudeaupia today...
Quel shockeroo (not)--the Ceeb has a distinct anti-American bias. And--here's the real shocker--Americans have noticed it. Writes Brian Lilley in the Toronto Sun:
OTTAWA - CBC programming is decidedly anti-American according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.
A cable from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa to officials in Washington says CBC, "the state-owned” broadcaster "has long gone to great pains to highlight the distinction between Americans and Canadians.”
The diplomatic note goes on the say "the level of anti-American melodrama”reached new heights with the launch of the show The Border.
The Border, which launched in January 2008, was billed as a show about the fight against criminals and terrorists at the Canada-U.S. border.
But American officials viewed the show differently. They called the show Canada’s answer to 24 without "that Sutherland guy”and felt the CBC was pushing a storyline that the real fight was with shadowy Americans working with the CIA.
"Many of the immigration team’s battles end up being with U.S. government officials, often in tandem with the CIA-colluding Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS),” the cable reads.
The cable lays out several plot lines that portray Americans as arrogant, overbearing and generally not concerned with respecting Canadian sovereignty.
In one episode, an American official calls in a U.S. air strike to take out terrorists whose plane had crashed in Quebec, but the plane is actually an American "black-ops” plane taking Guantanamo Bay prisoners to Syria for torture...
That's the Ceeb for you--Americans are the bad guys whereas Gitmo inmates are torture victims and/or "boy soldiers" whom we all want to bring "home" for the sake of his "human rights." (And don't get me started on that adorably dainty mosque on the flatlands frequented by cuddly, innocuous Muslims and silly, bigoted infidels.)
When my son was little I used to sing him this song, my rewrite of "I'm a Little Teapot":
I'm a little latke,
Round and brown.
Here is my up side;
Here is my down.
Sour cream upon me
Tastes just right.
Then eat me up on Hanukkah night!
Want to get up to speed on the quasi-totalitarian bodies which enforce societal virtue in Canada (a.k.a. our "human rights" commissions/tribunals)? Well, you could read this--part 1 of a 12 (yes, a 12)-part series in Troy Media. But I warn you--it's devoid of irony and wit and is thus a pretty tough slog. If you really want a grounding, fast, in the ins and outs of the virtue apparatus, the Kathy Shaidle/Pete Vere exposé is a much better read.
Sharia expert David Yerushalmi, who poses the question, answers it in the affirmative here.
Thomas L. Friedman "imagines" a WikiLeak written by a diplomat from China re the U.S. (a leak that could never be because WikiLeaker Julian Assange isn't interested in exposing what the non-free world is up to):
There is a willful self-destructiveness in the air here as if America has all the time and money in the world for petty politics. They fight over things like — we are not making this up — how and where an airport security officer can touch them. They are fighting — we are happy to report — over the latest nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. It seems as if the Republicans are so interested in weakening President Obama that they are going to scuttle a treaty that would have fostered closer U.S.-Russian cooperation on issues like Iran. And since anything that brings Russia and America closer could end up isolating us, we are grateful to Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona for putting our interests ahead of America’s and blocking Senate ratification of the treaty. The ambassador has invited Senator Kyl and his wife for dinner at Mr. Kao’s Chinese restaurant to praise him for his steadfastness in protecting America’s (read: our) interests.
Americans just had what they call an “election.” Best we could tell it involved one congressman trying to raise more money than the other (all from businesses they are supposed to be regulating) so he could tell bigger lies on TV more often about the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. This leaves us relieved. It means America will do nothing serious to fix its structural problems: a ballooning deficit, declining educational performance, crumbling infrastructure and diminished immigration of new talent.
Ah, yes. If only America were more like China. If only its citizenry didn't squawk and balk at their privates being diddled by some hack airport security official. If only there weren't what they call "elections" and the government/elites could get to "fix" everything without having to consider what the hoi poi had to say about it.
That would be sheer bliss, eh, Tom?
Update: I prefer this "imagining"--the WikiLeaks as condensed and explained by dolphins:
Berlusconi likes girls.
Sarkozy likes himself.
Angela Merkel is boring.
David Cameron is more boring.
Hillary thinks Cristina needs a shrink.
Benjamin Netanyahu can’t stand Ehud Olmert.
Al Qaeda hates America.
Yemen’s president hates Al Qaeda
Ahmadinejad is Hitler
North Korea likes Iran.
Saudi Arabia hates Iran
Julian Assange is Dennis Kucinich.
PFC Manning will never see the sun again.
America needs a new president.
The impending demise (maybe) of the Ceej has come to the attention of the media. Here, for instance, is the National Post's article about the, er, streamlining (a polite way of saying "you're toast, fellahs"), while the Ottawa Citizen's Andrew Cohen tries to drum up support for the lefty organization on left-wing grounds here:
...But Congress isn't just about Jews. It has championed human rights and social justice, from the creation of the Ontario Human Rights Code to opposing the ban on minarets in Switzerland to protesting genocide in Darfur and Rwanda. It has made alliances with unions and the church. It has embraced the rights of women, homosexuals, aboriginals and the Roma, and reliably solicited aid for natural disasters around the world.
It has fought anti-Semitism everywhere with a nuance unknown to the blustering B'nai Brith, which lacks credibility.
Does every Canadian Jew agree with the Canadian Jewish Congress? Of course not. At root, though, it is an instrument of good in Canada. Only fools and amnesiacs would dissolve it.
There are tons of good reasons to dissolve the Ceej. Now, if only I could remember what they were...
