The Lion of Judah

In The Name of God, Go!

2005-04-22T15:06:00.000-04:00

Having come to visit my eldest son and his family in Calgary for the Passover festival, I found myself busy with preparations for the holiday. What with shopping and spending time with the grandchildren, by early evening I found I was pooped. I turned on the TV to learn that Prime Minister Paul Martin would be addressing the nation in a few moments.

Too tired to thumb the remote, I decided to watch the telecast. Here are some random, brief thoughts on what transpired in the next 30 minutes.

Paul Martin looked well groomed, but not Prime-Ministerial. He failed to shake off the sobriquet, Mr. Dither. Indeed, by being the only one to appear in ‘canned’ format, rather than live, as did the other leaders, his weakness under fire was highlighted.

But what was truly sad was to see the Prime Minister of Canada, begging for clemency, or, at least, a delay before the imposition of sentence. Actually, his seven minute address was reminiscent of a defence lawyer making submissions to sentence.

Unfortunately, in this instance the accused was acting as his own counsel, and the litany of supposed mitigating factors which he cited merely added to the culpability.

I was also struck by the fact that while all opposition leaders spoke in both French and English, Mr. Martin spoke only in English. Perhaps he has already written off the Province of Quebec.

And as I listened and watched, I could not help but think of the words uttered by Oliver Cromwell in dismissing the rump parliament in 1653: “you have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go!”

The Little Twig and the Limp Carrot

2005-04-01T11:21:00.000-05:00

True, I am writing this on April 1st. However, I assure you this is no April Fool’s joke. Which is not to say that, were it not so tragic, it would not make for a great comedy routine. It might start with the line: ‘Did you hear the one about the General who ordered a retreat and called it a momentous step forward?’

Great tactician that he is, Ariel Sharon orchestrated the votes in the Knesset to assure that his dictates would prevail. On the budget vote he was able to come up with 700,000 Shekel to buy the votes of Tommy Lapid and his party. Thus he not only assured passage of the budget, he also, as someone commented recently, legalized prostitution in Israel. Once it was legalized, he was able to persuade a number of Likud members to vote with him by promising them cabinet positions.

However, as he was ready to put the new cabinet appointees before the Knesset Plenum, he suddenly realized that he did not have the votes. So he changed his mind and withdrew the appointments. This was not difficult for him because he has gained vast experience in going back on his word. Indeed the hallmark of his current administration is one broken promise after another. It reminds me of the question David Ben-Gurion is reputed to have uttered when Sharon’s name came up: “Is Arik still lying?”

Amram Mitzna campaigned in the last elections on a call to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. Sharon unequivocally attacked him for this position, and roundly defeated him and the Labour Party. Conclusion: the country was against this folly.

Now Sharon argues that circumstances have changed and the policy that was defeated must be implemented. He goes on to argue that the nation as a whole supports him in this. Yet I am not aware of any vote by the populace that approves such a move.

I know the argument about the polls showing the people’s approval. But as the cliché has it: ‘the only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box’. That is the one he steadfastly refuses to permit. Could it be that deep down he knows he would lose?

Leaving aside all of the above, I have yet to hear any real justification for the policy of disengagement. What I do hear is that the Egypt-Gaza border will be policed by the Egyptians. They are the people who bring you that great entertainment called, “Dig a New Tunnel”. This program, which runs almost daily, is sponsored by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and the Tanzim – their respective arms smuggling wings, as distinguished from their political or homicide bombing wings.

As for expecting any policing from the Palestinians, ‘fugedaboudit’. They’re too busy smuggling in Strela missiles so they can threaten commercial and military aircraft. And such officers, or future officers, as are not engaged in the smuggling are busy shooting up Abu Mazen’s Ramallah headquarters.

Just to add to the lunacy, Shaul Mofaz, former Chief of Staff, now Defence Minister, says the PA must seize the missiles. Does he not realize they are the ones who brought them in? These are weapons not permitted in the PA territories, neither under Oslo nor the Road Map. They should be destroyed immediately, otherwise all bets are off. Inexplicably, he holds out a little twig and threatens with a limp carrot.

The reality is that the Egyptians are not going to help Israel. Since the death of Sadat there is not one whit of evidence to show benign intentions by Egypt. They are the facilitators , if not the instigators, of the smuggling in the Rafah area. Now Sharon wants to rely on them to police the Philadelphi Road.

This unilateral lunacy can achieve only one thing. Instead of the hotspot being the Egypt-Gaza area, it will now become the Gaza-Yad Mordechai area. The killers and headchoppers will be getting ever closer to the heartland of Israel. And when the day of reckoning comes it will do no good for the nation to repeat Ben-Gurion’s question quoted above.

A Colour Orange

2005-03-20T17:30:00.000-05:00

One of my grandsons is afflicted with a love for the colour orange. Why do I say afflicted? Well, if he visits Israel in today’s police-state climate, he might not be permitted to enter. At the very least, he would be subject to forceful questioning about his love for that colour, which, according to the simple-minded police mentality now prevalent, clearly signifies support for the Jews of Yesha, and opposition to disengagement.

I say this because of what happened to members of the group that recently came to Israel with Dov Hikind. Mr. Hikind is apparently an Assemblyman from the State of New York. Reputedly, he is also a staunch supporter of the State of Israel. Thus he assembled some 40 New Yorkers, including Supreme Court Justices, educators, and business people, all of whom came to Israel at their own expense to show solidarity with the inhabitants of Yesha.

Now the purpose of the trip was no secret. Indeed publicity was the point of the exercise. On arrival the vast majority of the group was unceremoniously taken to an interrogation area and subjected to questioning which was clearly intended to intimidate. Passports were seized, and the police lied to them by telling them that Gush Katif, where they were intending to go to show solidarity, was a closed military area. When one woman spoke up to ask why she was being honoured with such a display of heavy-handedness, she was informed that the orange t-shirt she was wearing clearly branded her as a person who was against disengagement. Hence my concern about my grandson’s affliction.

Are these guys for real? The group came for the express purpose of showing solidarity with the inhabitants of Yesha, and to voice their disapproval of Sharon’s disengagement lunacy. In a democracy the concept of l’etat c’est moi does not exist. The people are free to express their opinions, and those who agree with them are free to demonstrate that agreement.

I realize the members of the New York group were probably not Israeli citizens. But they are the people to whom Israel turns for support in times of need. And they are clearly Jews who love Israel and the Jewish people. Just because Aipac will not permit anti-disengagement voices to be heard, does not mean that there are not large numbers of North American Jews opposed to disengagement. They are just as entitled to be heard, both in and out of Israel, as are the so called ‘leaders of the Jewish community’. And the latter are not really leaders at all. Rather, they are a collection of followers falling into step behind the dictates of a formerly great general, now a wholly befuddled and anti-democratic Prime Minister.

This past Saturday we read the special Maftir, Zachor, which is read annually before the festival of Purim. It is an obligation on every Jew to hear this reading, to remember it, and, as best he can, to try and achieve its fulfillment. We are told to remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people on their way out of Egypt. We must never forget, and we are commanded to wipe out the memory of Amalek. Was Sharon in the synagogue to hear the reading? Did any of his anti-democratic minions hear it?

They have another chance to learn the lesson. Thursday evening and Friday morning they can hear another reading, Megillat Esther, in which the lesson is basically the same. But somehow I don’t think they’ll be there.

On the other hand, I think a good many of Hikind’s group heard Zachor. They will likely hear the Megillah. But they got the point long ago; they remember, and they want others to remember as well.

As I write this I am looking at a painting of Queen Esther that my wife did in 1979. It so happens that the Queen is dressed in orange. More and more I’m beginning to like that colour.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

2005-03-18T12:10:00.000-05:00

If we disregard the spin doctors, and overlook the mendacious statements of the parties, it is clear that Abu Mazen's negotiations with the 13 terrorist factions have failed. This, of course, is no great surprise, as they were never intended to succeed. Simple window dressing to continue the pretence.

The obligation of the PA is to disarm the terrorist organizations. That is what they committed to in the Oslo Accords, and again in the Road Map. That is the first step, the sine qua non, without which nothing can happen. But Abu Mazen has said often and publicly, both during the election campaign and afterwards, that he has no intention of moving against the terrorists. And so the only purpose served by the meeting between the 13 factions and the terrorist-in-chief was to create window dressing.

Israel Radio carried the following statement by Abu Mazen: "The Palestinian agreement is important and serious and it will ... give the peace process a chance to move forward."

Clearly the agreement is "important". But only to the PA, as it permits the PA to continue the fiction that it will fight terror and the terrorists. But the reality is that there is not even a hudna, there is just some ephemeral concept of calm, capable of being broken, without notice, at any time. I guess it is like a time-out in sports: an opportunity to catch your breath, get new instructions from the coach, then take up the battle once again.

I was troubled by the use of the word "serious". But on reflection I think he inserted it in the comment in order to forestall the outcries that would start with: ARE YOU SERIOUS? Because that is the only sensible question to be asked when the terms of the agreement are grasped. The calm is not only ephemeral, but is subject to such nonsensical conditions as the release of all prisoners. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Abu Mazen goes on to talk about a "peace process". What peace process? There never was, and there never will be, a peace process until the thirteen bands of killers are fully disarmed and shunned by all those who truly seek peace. That does not mean coopting the killers to the PA security forces. There is no point in relieving them of their present ordinance, just to issue them new, or even the same, ordinance, and calling them members of the security forces. All the more so when we recall that the lynch mob that brutally killed two Israeli reservists was to a large extent composed of members of the PA security forces.

I also find it interesting that Abu Mazen has two names. This nome de guerre, and the name given him at birth, Mahmoud Abbas. Under the latter name, as the elected President of the PA he speaks out of one side of his mouth, mouthing platitudes designed to hide his true intentions. Under the former name he mouths the true venom of his position, the incitement that will inevitably lead to more death and devastation.

Peace process indeed. If he really wants to set off on such a process he must take the first step to which he has obligated himself. Disarm the terrorists, stop them in their tracks. Peace will follow as day does night.

That is, if he is serious.

The Thin End Of The Wedge

2005-02-27T23:24:00.000-05:00

On my first trip to Israel, almost 50 years ago, both I and the country were young and naive. But even the youthful exuberance, wonder and awe, could not keep me from noticing the inordinate bureaucracy, and the almost dictatorial socialist behaviour of the police and government functionaries, the pakidim.

As a Zionist-Revisionist, a Betari, and devotee of Jabotinsky and Begin, the incident of the Altalena, when Ben Gurion ordered Jews to open fire on Jews, and the order was carried out by Yitzchak Rabin, was fresh in my mind. But as I walked the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat, all could be overlooked. To be in a Jewish homeland was what mattered, all the rest were minor irritants and could be ignored. Boy, was I wrong.

Then, over the years, as the light began to penetrate, I was still loath to publicly find fault with the State. In a sense, I still am to this very day.

However, the use being made today of the police and security services to ram a policy down the throats of the people is going just a little too far. There was the Avishai Raviv affair where the lunatic conduct of a Shabak agent led, directly or indirectly, to the assassination of a Prime Minister.

Now, once again an agent provocateur is being used to discredit the right of the political spectrum. And if that is not enough, you have people who disagree with government policy being thrown into jail in "administrative detention". No right to a trial, no crime specified, just thrown in jail because the Shabak, or the police or the Prime Minister, or some nameless functionary doesn't like what they are saying. And all this in the name of democracy.

The law governing "administrative detention" is a left-over from the British Mandate period. After the declaration of statehood in 1948, Israel just never got around to getting rid of it. In 57 years they could never get around to rescinding the law. In any event, surely in a democracy one may speak out against that with which one disagrees. One may even go so far as to urge the defeat of a government and the formation of a new government. If not, where is the democracy?

Martin Luther King was never placed in "administrative detention" because the US, unlike the hypocritical British, never had such a quaint concept. Yet Israel chooses to maintain this iniquitous tool, and to use it with increasing frequency. If someone is speaking sedition or committing treason, charge him accordingly, and present your evidence in a court of law. Otherwise, to speak out is his democratic right. To attend demonstrations and rallies is equally his right. Those in power may disagree with what he urges, but they must always accord him the right to urge it publicly and freely.

Lately I am reading about incidents where the police are alleged to have beaten youngsters for no reason other than they were attending or participating in demonstrations against government policy. Some of these youngsters are at an age where they are about to be inducted into the military. What a novel way of instilling patriotism! Here is the coverage from Arutz-7 - Israel National News.

Arutz-7 – Israel National News,
2/27/2005

Two families told Arutz-7 the same thing today: "We've filed a complaint with the
Police Department against the policemen in question, and are planning to file a civil lawsuit as well, via Honenu."
Both families, the Alberts and the Halfons, underwent the same trauma at the hands of violent policemen, just a day apart. A member of each family was arrested by police for no apparent reason, and was beaten up repeatedly by policemen on the way to - and in one case, inside - the police station.
The story of Hanoch Albert, 25, of Givat Ahiyah near Shilo, was told to Arutz-7 in detail by his brother and wife. On Feb. 15, police came to arrest Hanoch's friend for having planted a tree a month earlier at the site where he was wounded and a friend was killed in a terror attack in May 2003.
Hanoch attempted to dissuade the police from arresting him, explaining that his friend was a terror victim, etc. There was no violence, but finally the police decided to take Hanoch as well. On the way to the police station, they threatened him – "We know your family; you'll end up in the hospital in pieces" – and at one point, took him out of the car and began beating him frightfully and powerfully. He protected his face and head as best he could, but received strong blows on his head and neck – and still suffers from pain and nausea today. The police brought him to the Shaar Binyamin police station just north of Jerusalem, where they interrogated him and continued to strike him.
"He called me for a second," his brother Elchanan said, "and just managed to say that I should come to Shaar Binyamin, and when I got there, I heard from behind the door how the policemen were laughing about how they had hit him, and complaining that he would probably be released soon.
"Ariel Halfon, a 17.5-year-old resident of Shilo, has a similar story: "On Feb. 16, I was walking away from the [anti-disengagement] protest in Tel Aviv with my friend when a police car drove by. We paid no attention. Suddenly, policemen jumped out and arrested us. I asked one of them for some identification, and I received a strong slap. The other policeman also didn't show identification... they really beat me up. They then threw me into the car and put me in the back. A policeman sitting next to me [his name is being withheld in the meanwhile at Ariel's request – ed.] struck me throughout the whole ride, with the other policemen encouraging him.
"When we got to the station, a policeman asked me for identification. I hesitated for a moment, and when he saw that, he took the very heavy log book and gave me a terrifically strong blow on my head, and then struck me in the legs." They interrogated him for several hours, and then took him to Ichilov Hospital to have his eye - which was hurt during the course of the beatings - looked at. No x-rays of his limbs or other organs were taken, and the family was unable to receive a copy of the
medical records for several days.
Both families say they wish to publicize their stories in order that the guilty be punished and to deter other policemen from acting the same way. They are in contact with Honenu, an organization that has set as its goal the provision of legal aid for those who find themselves in legal trouble as a direct or indirect result of the military/political situation in Israel.
Shmuel Medad of Kiryat Arba, who heads the organization, told Arutz-7 today, "The film clip on our site shows just four examples – but we have a lot to update it with, ever since they started this unprecedented and terribly ugly wave of arrests of protestors against the disengagement. Just today I was informed of a boy in the Old City who was kept overnight in the Old City police station last night for an incident of spitting that occurred a month ago, and of two Chabadniks arrested for taking part in a protest, and of someone from Maon who was beaten mercilessly... We are collapsing under the burden, but we can't give up."

Now the Attorney General takes it one step further. He is urging legislators to change the law so that citizens may be arrested for what the Shabak, or the police, or the Lord alone knows who else, thinks they may be thinking. According to Menachem Mazuz, the old law requires evidence. Usually there isn't any. So let's do away with that silly requirement and simply throw them into jail. To quote Dr. Aaron Lerner of Imra:

Israel TV: AG Mazuz proposes outlawing expression as "inciting" even if doesn't lead to violence
Aaron Lerner Date: 27 February 2005
Israel Television Channel One news correspondent Avi Fierst reported on Mabat tonight that Attorney General Mazuz explained to the cabinet today that the incitement law now requires that political expression can only be prosecuted as illegal if it "has a real possibility of leading to violence" and thus cases don't hold up in court as a conviction essentially requires that someone armed who is exposed to the expressions actually acts on the words."If you want us to act," Mazuz told the cabinet, "then change the law."
Fierst's report on Mabat also featured, within (sic) considerable fanfare and graphics, the contents of a pamphlet that was "revealed" by Shabak (ISS) head Avi Dichter to the cabinet: "Instructions to the protestor against disengagement from the Legal Center of the Headquarters for the Struggle Against Disengagement
"Recommended to bring a camera - if arrested - pass to a friend."
"Equip yourself with a cellular telephone with the number of the legal assistance center in the memory."
"During the course of the interrogation say: "this is a political interrogation and thus I have nothing more to say."
"Record the names of the police for the purposes of filing a proper complaint."
"They always have complaints that they were hit and beaten etc. etc.", Fierst explained.

The advice is what any competent first-year law student would give. As to Fierst's closing comment, he fails to take into account that the complaints may well be true. But all of that aside, the attitude of the authorities smacks of George Orwell's 1984. All the more so when the putative guardian of the rights of the people, the Attorney General, is the one suggesting abrogating, if not eliminating, those rights.

If one emulates the worst conduct of one's enemy to protect oneself from that enemy, is one any better than that enemy? The end does not always justify the means. Indeed, it rarely does. To abridge democratic rights is to fly entirely against that which the world needs most. We must not let the thin end of the wedge under the door.

Of Buttons and Prisoners

2005-02-20T17:44:00.000-05:00

Jake was a ne'er-do-well who used to hang out with the gamblers and race track characters. Rube had a poultry business, and a rather ugly daughter. On bumping into Jake one day, Rube proposed that Jake marry his daughter, and Rube would buy him a truck and hire him to deliver the poultry. And so the deal was done.

However, the daughter kept coming to Rube to complain that thus far Jake had not so much as touched her. Finally, after some weeks, Rube went to see Jake to try and find out what was going on.

Now, in those days, zippers on trouser flies had not yet replaced buttons. As Rube upbraided Jake for not fulfilling his marital responsibilities, the answer he got was: "Not one button moves until I get my truck"

So, too, the United States is a country that likes to propose a marriage between Israel and the Palestinians. In 1998, Bill Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard if Israel signed the Wye Agreement. Bibi Netanyahu, accompanied by Arik Sharon, signed; but no Jonathan Pollard. Under Ehud Barak, Israel was urged to release terrorist prisoners. Many were released, still no Jonathan Pollard. To free one bent former colonel who became a less than honest businessman, and retrieve some dead bodies, Arik Sharon gave away the store; still no Jonathan Pollard.

And now, to satisfy a preening holocaust denier, Sharon is urged to free a fresh batch of killers and terrorists. Once again he is going to give away the store, when he should be saying: "not one button moves until I get my truck". Not one prisoner should be released until Jonathan Pollard is freed.

If you agree, e-mail Prime Minister Sharon at pm@pmo.gov.il, I'm sure he'll be glad to hear from you. While you are at it, why not send a copy to Justice For Jonathan Pollard: pollard@jonathanpollard.org.

A Foreign Affair

2005-02-16T14:06:00.000-05:00

Throughout his tenure I often contended that Bill Graham was probably the worst Foreign Minister Canada ever had. However, given the performance of the present incumbent in that office, Pierre Pettigrew, I almost find myself wishing for the return of Graham. I said almost.

I guess that given the amount of time he has spent in his pied-a-terre in Paris, Pettigrew has picked up the French way of conducting foreign affairs. And given the Liberal bias against the US, Israel, the war in Iraq, and the war on Terror, his incomprehensible judgment calls seem to perfectly fit the French mould.

Recently he went off to the Middle East. The purpose of the trip wholly escapes me, but there he was laying a wreath at the grave of the Great Terrorist, Yasser Arafat. As I wrote in a letter to the National Post:

National Post
Monday, February 14, 2005
Re: Pettigrew Assailed For Arafat Tribute, Feb. 12.
I suppose it may not surprise other readers that Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew would honour one of the world's leading terrorist murderers. But I think that act was shameful in the extreme.
And then to read that two members of the Canada Israel committee, who were traveling with the Minister, condoned the action is also highly disturbing.
Everyone seems to agree that Mr. Arafat was the main obstacle to peace, and so to heap honour on him on behalf of Canada sends the wrong message at this time.
I can understand Mazen Chouaib pointing out on behalf of the National Council of Canada-Arab Relations that, "Arafat, whether we like it or not, was democratically elected by the majority of the Palestinian people." I would simply point out that Adolf Hitler, too, was democratically elected. I might even go so far as to point out that the similarity does not end there.
© National Post 2005

I doubt even Bill Graham would have been so insensitive or so foolish. But Graham can take pride in the fact that his successor borrows from him as well as the French. We all recall how Graham dithered and stalled to avoid declaring Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The excuses were legion. He claimed Hezbollah did good work in education, but neglected to mention that it was educating the members in making bombs and killing innocent women and children. He also claimed that Hezbollah was a political party as well as a collection of thugs and killers, and we should overlook the latter to preserve the former.
And now Graham can look with pride on Pettigrew who yesterday refused to declare the Tamil Tigers a Terrorist entity. His reason was that to do so would interfere with negotiations presently under way in Sri Lanka. But he takes it one step further and says that the US has asked him not to declare the Tamil Tigers to be terrorists, although the US has long ago done so.
My simple question is, are they or are they not terrorists? As quoted by CP, the Minister states they are. Isn't that an end to the matter? And since when do good Liberals take instructions from the US? Isn't he afraid that Carolyn Parrish may attack him as being born of an unwed mother?
Bob and weave, do the dipsy-doodle, avoid decisions, blame everyone who is not a Liberal; that is Canada's foreign policy for the last twelve years. Mike Pearson must be turning in his grave, given what is happening to the Department which he led for years. One did not always agree with him, but he articulated and implemented policies. This present bunch, integrity and policy are concepts totally foreign to them. That is why Pierre Pettigrew is Minister of foreign Affairs.

Intelligence Analyst Without Intelligence

2005-02-11T13:54:00.000-05:00

Michael Scheuer is a former CIA analyst who was in charge of the Bin Laden unit in the late 1990s. It seems the one thing he did not bring to his job was God-given intelligence. Fortunately he left the CIA in 2004; unfortunately, not soon enough.

Yesterday James Taranto had a piece in the Wall Street Journal which highlights once again how 'off the wall' Scheuer really is. He now has Israel and the Jews conspiring to lead the US in the direction they wish them to go. According to him this is a clandestine operation by the Israelis to Hijack the Congress, to say nothing of the Executive branch of the US government.

Is he bonkers, or is he just another anti-Semite looking to blame Israel and the Jews for all the errors he made while with the CIA? Sad that the US relied on the rantings of this fellow to combat Bin Laden. The level of success that was achieved is clearly indicative of his abilities and reliability.

Again It's Thanks to Bush

2005-02-10T11:29:00.000-05:00

Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli, senior analyst with MEMRI, gave testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations with respect to the Paul Volcker UN Oil-For-Food report. Dr. Raphaeli's written submissions make for very interesting reading.

From the outset it is clear that but for "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the likelihood is that none of this would have come to light. Indeed, it seems to me that the fear of this coming to light was the major reason that the French, Germans and the other nay-sayers of the 'International Community', to say nothing of Kofi Annan and his cohorts, dithered and dawdled. Look, they had a good thing going. They make a little (in relative terms), Saddam and his fellow butchers make a lot. As they say in the movies: 'nothing personal, it's just business'.

And what a business. Billions of dollars flowing, all in the wrong direction. As for the Iraqi people, well they are no worse off than they were before, are they? Why worry?

After being persuaded that the proper route was to seek UN approval to attack Iraq, President Bush finally woke up to the folly and futility of this course. Attack he did, and he succeeded in bringing freedom to a long suffering people. Part of that freedom included a press that could write about things that would have cost them their lives under Saddam. In January 2004, the Iraqi daily al-Mada broke the story with the publication of a list of those who had received vouchers for oil at below market cost.

MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) immediately picked up on the report, translated it from the Arabic, and gave it wide dissemination around the world. One is left to wonder where all the high-priced, blow-dried, foreign correspondents were. I forgot, they don't read Arabic.

As might be expected, the 'usual suspects' stalled and stonewalled, twisted and turned, but to no avail. Gradually it all began to unravel. The media finally began to exert pressure, as did the US Congress. Meantime further scandals are coming to light. The credibility of the defenders is beginning to shrink. Old Europe continues to pretend to virtue where virtue does not exist. The UN is clearly seen as a dysfunctional entity about to expire. Is there anything there worth saving? I doubt it.

And all of this is once again thanks to George W. Bush, whose steadfastness trumps all challenges. To paraphrase the song: "he does it his way".

Same Old, Same Old

2005-02-04T09:11:00.000-05:00

King Solomon, (the fellow who built the First Temple, which the Palestinians insist never existed) taught us "there is nothing new under the sun". Clearly he was exceedingly prophetic. Even though Palestinians were unknown at that time, and would not exist until the name was created for Arab political purposes in the second half of the 20th Century, the King was able to divine that nothing new would arise in dealing with them.

In the 'new' Abbas regime the Mosques are still providing the same old rhetoric of anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel vitriol. And today I read that the Palestinians are outraged at the Israeli intention to release only 900 Palestinian prisoners: 500 immediately, and 400 after three months. They deem this foolish, but magnanimous gesture an insult. Same old, same old.

They want them all, all 7,600 prisoners in Israeli custody, including the over 700 who predate the Oslo Accords. Bombers, snipers, killers of women and children, they want them all. We should not be surprised. They want all of Israel as well, and this is just part of the means by which they hope to achieve their goal.

This is part of what is referred to as 'confidence building measures'. Now what exactly does that mean? Whose confidence? And why?

Such a massive influx of terrorists and killers to the talent pool of Palestinian terrorism is clearly not designed to build Israeli confidence. So that leaves the Palestinians. Precisely what confidence of theirs has to be built up, and how will this achieve it?

The answer is quite simple. We must build their confidence in their ability to continue to terrorize Israel. Thus they can call a hudna, and lay low as they replenish their arms, tactics and strategy. When they deem the moment propitious, as Mohammed did to the Qureish, they will trigger an excuse and revert to their terrorist cabal.

Surely it makes much more sense for the Palestinians to offer concessions by way of 'confidence building measures'. They might start by turning over the killers and terrorists that they continue to harbour so they could face prosecution. That might be followed up by disarming the terrorist bands such as Hamas and Al Aqsa Brigades. I understand they do not want a civil war. However, it is the responsibility of government to maintain order. Talk of taking these killers into the Palestinian Security Services, is simply to beg the question.

This is just a new gloss on the Arafat revolving-door policy. The old master terrorist used to arrest them at the front door and immediately release them by the one at the rear. It would appear that Abbas's plan is to take their illegal arms in a photo op at the front door, then induct them into the Security Services. Immediately they will be issued a legal weapon, a fancy new uniform, and now they can parade in the open. But it is still the same killer.

It is not a question of avoiding civil war but rather a question of being able to maintain law and order. If Abbas can't to that, why are we even talking to him?

Shame on Labour and Blair

2005-02-01T17:35:00.000-05:00

William Rees-Mogg, in an article in the Times, highlights the disgraceful conduct of the British Labour Party, and by extension their leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair. At issue is their portrayal of Michael Howard, Conservative Party leader, as Fagin. This is no less than blatant anti-Semitism, and goes a long way in explaining recent polls that show an abysmal British attitude to Jews, to Israel, and to things Jewish.

Paying lip service to stamping out anti-Semitism, and mouthing platitudes in commemoration of the freeing of Auschwitz, is totally meaningless in the face of such conduct. I know politics is a dirty business. But this wasn't dirty, it was putrid. What does Michael Howard's Jewishness have to do with the upcoming election? If the Opposition Leader were a Muslim would Labour run ads superimposing his head on a pig?

This sort of blatant, anti-Semitic, characterization of an opponent differs not one whit from the Palestinian portrayals of Ariel Sharon as a butcher with blood dripping from a knife. If there be any difference at all it is that some might consider the British to be civilized, although I am beginning to question even that.

Britain, of course, is part of the Quartet, the all-knowing oracles involved in the Road Map to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This really confirms my confidence in the even-handedness of the entire process. But there is still President Bush, and he may just prove to be the equalizer.

Remembering the Wannsee Conference and the Liberation of Auschwitz

2005-01-27T01:18:00.000-05:00

January 20th, was the anniversary of the 1942 Wannsee Conference. In the course of that Conference, the Nazi hierarchy formalized the plan to annihilate the Jewish people. Understanding the horrors of Auschwitz, and the Holocaust requires that one be aware of the premeditated mass-murder that was adopted at Wannsee. Hence a BlogBurst by bloggers around the world, simultaneously commemorating this great evil. A list of those participating may be found here.

Today, January 27, 2005, is the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp. As the generation of Holocaust survivors who suffered most directly, and bear witness most directly, gradually dies off, we must assure that this mark of Cain is never rubbed off those who butchered defenceless innocents, and the wider world that simply stood by and did nothing. It is essential that history record forever the horror that was perpetrated. We must never forget, nor may we permit others to forget, lest it happen once again.

The Holocaust, symbolized by Auschwitz, the worst of the death camps, occurred in the wake of a consistent, systematic, unrelenting anti-Jewish propaganda campaign. As a result, the elimination of the Jews from German society was accepted as axiomatic, leaving open only two questions: when and how?

As Germany expanded its domination and occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Poland, parts of the USSR, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Italy and others countries, the way was open for Hitler to realize his well-publicized plan of destroying the Jewish people.

After experimentation, the use of Zyklon B on unsuspecting victims was adopted by the Nazis as the means of choice. Auschwitz was selected as the main factory of death (more accurately, one should refer to the “Auschwitz-Birkenau complex”). The green light for mass extermination was given at the Wannsee Conference, and the mass gassings took place in Auschwitz between 1942 and the end of 1944, when the Nazis retreated before the advancing Red Army. Jews were transported to Auschwitz from all over Nazi-occupied or Nazi-dominated Europe, and most were slaughtered in Auschwitz upon arrival. Sometimes as many as 12,000 were brutally murdered in one day. Some victims were selected for slave labour, others for “medical” experimentation. All were subject to unimagineable brutal treatment whose ultimate aim was their death.

In all, between three and four million people, mostly Jews, but also Poles and Red Army POWs, were slaughtered in Auschwitz alone (though some authors put the number at 1.3 million). Other death camps were located at Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec (Belzek), Majdanek and Treblinka.

Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army on 27 January 1945, after most of the remaining prisoners were forced into a Death March westwards. The Red Army found only about 7,600 survivors on entering Auschwitz, but even of that number not all could be saved.

For a long time, the Allies were well aware of the mass murder, but deliberately refused to bomb the camp or the railways leading to it. Ironically, during the Polish uprising, the Allies had no hesitation in flying aid to Warsaw, sometimes flying right over Auschwitz.

There are troubling parallels between the systematic vilification of Jews before the Holocaust and the current vilification of the Jewish people and Israel. Suffice it to note the annual flood of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN; or the public opinion polls taken in Europe, which single out Israel as a danger to world peace; or the divestment campaigns being waged in the US against Israel; or the attempts to delegitimize Israel’s very existence. The complicity of the Allies in WW II is mirrored by the support the PLO has been receiving from Europe, China and Russia to this very day.

If remembering Auschwitz should teach us anything, it is that we must all support Israel and the Jewish people against the vilification and the hatred we are witnessing. For today no one can claim they do not know where it will inevitably lead.

"Remember what Amalek did to you ... and he struck those of
you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and
exhausted, and he did not fear God. It shall be that when Hashem, your
God gives you rest from all your enemies all around, in the land that Hashem, your God gives you ... you shall not forget!"
Deuteronomy 25:17-19

"For the sake of my brothers and companions I will now say peace be
within thee. For the sake of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy good.
The Lord will give strength unto His people, the Lord will bless His people
with peace."
Talmud, Tractate Berakhot, 64a

Sixty Years On

2005-01-25T12:05:00.000-05:00

Yesterday the United Nations General Assembly met in special session to commemorate sixty years since the freeing of the death camps and the end to the Holocaust.

The Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in his usual smarmy, quasi-sincere fashion, was moved to say that, in large measure because of the Holocaust, the United Nations was founded. True. But then why is this the first time in the past sixty years that a commemoration takes place?

But let us look at the commemoration itself. The UN is composed of 191 member states. Most of them did not even bother to show up for the session. Only 35 of the 191 members nations chose to speak, with Jordan the only Arab country to avail itself of the opportunity. Well, if the UN was founded in large measure because of the Holocaust, then yesterday's performance is the best possible evidence that it is time for the UN to graciously disappear.

Had this been a special session to discuss imagined Palestinian rights, the debate would have continued for days. Speakers would have vied to outdo each other in the vilification of Israel and the Jews. The media would have devoted endless time, staff and resources to publicize each inane comment as if the future of the world depended on it.

This special session, on the other hand, was concluded in a matter of hours. The commemoration of the seminal event in the creation of the UN was marked almost apologetically, and only after the passage of sixty long, lamentable years, during which anti-semitism continues to rear its ugly head.

This coming Thursday, January 27, marks the 60th anniversary of the freeing of Auschwitz. The poor emaciated souls that were set free that day were but a minute percentage of the approximately 1.5 million Jews who met their untimely deaths at the hands of Nazi butchers in that camp alone. To see pictures of those freed that day is chilling in the extreme. But can we even imagine the 1.5 million corpses burned in the crematoria after the most painful and horrendous deaths. And why? Simply because they were Jews.

In total, in excess of 6 million Jews perished in this beastly manner. Finally, sixty years on, the General Assembly of the UN has acknowledged this fact. Even Kofi Annan was moved to say, "never again!". However, nowhere have I read that Mahmoud Abbas has finally disavowed his Holocaust-denying doctoral thesis.

On Thursday more than 150 bloggers around the world will be commemorating what happened 60 years ago by means of a blogburst. This, in large measure, is thanks to Joseph Alexander Norland at http://www.israpundit.com. Hopefully, many more will join. Should you wish to do so go to http://blogburstinfo.blogspot.com/.

Sans Force, Sans Truth, Sans Any Meaning

2005-01-19T14:26:00.000-05:00

Well, the cat is now out of the bag, if it was ever in the bag. Mahmoud Abbas has now admitted that the well publicized order to his security forces to stop terrorist attacks is to be achieved without the use of force. How, pray tell, does that work?

Certainly you do not get vicious killers to stop killing by offering them candy. Not even tickets to the local football matches would do the trick. Perhaps he intends to offer them an all-expense-paid trip to Rafah to help in tunnel digging. They could sort of make a family outing of it, and on the trip they could instruct their younger siblings on how to strap on a dynamite vest.

Whatever fanciful methodology he ultimately gives us, the fact is there will be no force. Without force they cannot control the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa murderers. And if they do not stop them then we are worse off than we were when terrorist numero uno was still alive. In the case of Arafat we knew that truth would never emanate from his lips for fear of knocking out his remaining teeth. With Abbas, unfortunately, there are many who believe what he says.

There is the old joke about the two people who opened a restaurant. A customer paid the check with a $100 bill. He did not notice that there were actually two bills stuck together. The partner at the cash register now had a moral dilemma. Should he or should he not tell his partner?

Is that the sort of partner with whom Israel is expected to deal?

If there is no truth; if there are no sensible, rational attempts to truly deal with the lawlessness and wanton killing that the terrorists practice daily, then it is all a waste of time. Essentially the exercise is without meaning.

Study the Abbas record. Look carefully at what he has said, and continues to say, to his own people in Arabic. Read what he has written. It will very quickly become patent that he is like the partner with the moral dilemma. Except that I am not convinced that considerations of morality would ever even enter his mind.

IT'S ALL IN THE GENES

2005-01-13T13:51:00.000-05:00

This morning I came across a talk which Melanie Phillips delivered at the end of last year. The reference to it is at her website, which links to the PDF version of the 17 page address.

What caught my attention was its relevance in light of the headlines today about Prince Harry and his donning of the swastika as part of a German Afrika Corps uniform.

Admittedly, I have always been a traditionalist when it came to the Monarchy. But, given the antics of the present Royal Family, I am not at all certain that they continue to serve a useful purpose. Charles is less than an inspiring example of a monarch-in-waiting. His siblings are no better. After Queen Elizabeth there is no steadfastness, no resolve. There is no appreciation of the duties and obligations that come with membership in the Royal Family.

They seem to think that they are Rock stars or sports figures, and should behave accordingly. Well, does anyone really want Ossie Osbourne as head of state?

My late father met King George VI in Scotland, and later in England, while serving with the Canadian forces in WWII. He often spoke of these meetings, and it was clear to me that he had been impressed by the King and his Queen. When the Queen Mother Elizabeth visited Canada, my youngest son waited so he could see her drive by. That same son met the Duke of Edinburgh in Toronto some years ago. He was highly unimpressed.

But back to Prince Harry. My late mother had a favourite Yiddish expression: "dos eppale falt nit veit fun boim", the apple does not fall far from the tree. Or as today's parlance would have it, it's all in the genes.

The Royal Family itself is of good German stock. Harry's great-great-uncle, the former King Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor, was a Nazi sympathizer, and less than a sterling example of Royalty. Harry's late mother, Princess Diana, was not a paragon of stability. And while it is unfortunate that she died at such an early age, I doubt that, had she lived, she would have had an improving influence on Harry.

But, leaving all of that aside, the real culprit is the British media, which, to a very large extent is the cause of the anti-semitism that leads to the sort of behaviour that finds nothing objectionable in wearing a swastika as part of a party costume.

Of late I have been finding fault with the French for their anti-Israel, anti-Jewish attitudes. But a recent poll in the Telegraph shows that the British are no better. Indeed, they may be worse.

The BBC, the Guardian, and a large segment of the media feed Britons a daily diet of propaganda, half-truths, untruths and vicious incitement against all things Israeli. A BBC reporter cries as a mass murderer and supreme terrorist is flown off to die in a French hospital.

It is all of a piece. If you tell the big lie often enough, people come to believe it.

Prince Harry probably saw nothing wrong in what he did. More is the pity.

But now he has apologized. Should that end the matter? Absolutely not. Let him forego his ski holiday this winter and, instead of going to Gstaad, let him go to Auschwitz. Let him research the Holocaust and then deliver an address on the fruits of his studies.

Sorry does not cut it. If you aspire to be Royalty, the least you can do is act like Royalty. The kind of Royalty that my father and son admired, not the kind my son found less than admirable.

The Lioness Speaks

2005-01-10T09:38:00.000-05:00

Danny Williams, the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland, in a stunt, the purpose of which escapes me, decided to "punish" Paul Martin and his government. How? By lowering the Canadian flag throughout his Province.

Silly, without a doubt. But it got to the Lioness, who is really a Honey Bee. So she asked me to post a poem that she wrote some time ago. I think it says it all.

"I Never Got To Newfoundland
(On Flying Over Newfoundland)

Newfoundland joined the Dominion
when I was a child, a union
secured by a small majority vote -
a grudging consent by the Islanders.
I welcomed that cold and windswept Isle,
thinking, "how brave an outpost on our eastern shore
standing on guard, O Canada, for thee".
I have loved Newfoundland ever since, from a distance.

I thought about St. John's, city of valour,
survivor of old fires, veteran of old wars.
I thought about the lonely fishing villages
that dot the coastal coves and bays.
Their music drifted westward; their dances
clung to the fleeing feet of the young;
and with it all came their charming folkways.
I've thought about Newfoundland, from a distance.

The Beothuk are gone, a precious first, now extinct,
leaving their traces sealed in the rockbed.
Settlers' children's children to Ontari-ari-o have fled.
Trees cut down, seals gone, whales gone, fish dead,
British might, French rights, Spanish trawlers, Federal bawlers.
Brave Newfoundlanders, who have for so long
wrested their legitimate harvest from land and sea!
I salute what was and what will be, from a distance.

I never got to Newfoundland
although I often planned to go.
Schedules, maps, and tourist things
littered the kitchen table
and then disappeared, replaced
by transatlantic tickets to another place.
"We are now flying over Gander, Newfoundland."
Words that pluck the unconscious strands of my regret."

Mahmoud Abbas: The Leopard Who Does Not Change His Spots

2005-01-06T17:51:00.000-05:00

What is it about politicians and so-called statesmen that causes them to lose their eyesight and intellectual acuity? It must be an as-yet undefined form of Altzheimers.

Shimon Peres, in a case of the blind leading the soon-to-be blind, convinced Yitzchak Rabin to set off on the course of folly known as Oslo. I argued at the time that such lunacy would inevitably lead to more and more bloodshed. Twelve years later the death toll keeps mounting.

I am not a prophet. But anyone with half a measure of brains, and that is all I have, could see that you cannot make peace with the world's greatest and most murderous terrorist.

Nonetheless, it took almost ten years for those who style themselves "World Leaders" to recognize the obvious. Even then, some, such as Jacques Chirac, would not admit it right to the very end. When Arafat finally had the good grace to die in a French hospital, Chirac gave him a sendoff worthy of a great head of state. Even the formal funeral in Egypt was more muted.

And now the cycle of horror is starting all over. "Politician's Altzheimers" is setting in again, and the "World Leaders" are embracing the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas. Moderate? There goes the eyesight and the acuity once more.

This is the same Mahmoud Abbas who financed and helped in the planning of the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. The same Abbas who since the mid-60s was the loyal sidekick of Arafat. He was clearly privy to all the horrors and killings, the hijackings, the extortion and the corruption that have been the hallmarks of Fatah and the PLO.

Where is the evidence of moderation? Surely not in his actions, either before or after the demise of Arafat; nor in his writings where he is clearly seen as a Holocaust denier and venomous hater of Jews.

No, he has not changed. As recently as two days ago he referred to Israel as the "Zionist enemy". His demands in all the speeches he has delivered in the election campaign do not vary one iota from those of his late but unlamented predecessor and mentor.

Will he fight terror? No. He will not take up arms against the terrorists, he insists. Well what does he propose to do, wave some magic wand that will cause them to disappear? I do not think so. The only disappearing he is interested in is that of Israel. It is still the same old message, but delivered in a tailored suit rather than a mock uniform.

We are urged to overlook all these things because Abbas is fighting an election and so he must appeal to the electorate in this way. Sure, tell them what they want to hear so you get elected, then you do what must be done. Isn't that what is called lieing?

What would "World Leaders" say if Prime Minister Alawi of Iraq were to campaign on the basis of Jihad against the US and the EU? How about a photo op where Alawi embraces al Zarqawi and pledges not to take up arms against him and his minions? Would the "international community" -another great phrase- pass it off as a lie necessary to get elected? Not on your life; and life is precisely what is at stake.

By permitting Abbas to get away with his incitement it further cements the poisonous hatred that is the daily diet of the Palestinians. The injection of this venom kills any hope for peace.

No, the leopard has not changed his spots. But he is being released into the forest to wreak his havoc.

An Apology

2004-12-31T08:45:00.000-05:00

In my previous post I upbraided the Vatican and its newspaper for besmirching Israel. It turns out that CWNews mistranslated the portion on which I relied.

In fact, the original news story took to task the government of Sri Lanka for refusing Israeli aid, and not Israel for failing to give it.

So, that which I asked of the Vatican, I must now render to it. Mea Culpa. My sincere apologies. It is a lesson well learned; in the future I will try to rely on the original.

Norwegian UN Chutzpah

2004-12-29T13:23:00.000-05:00

Jan Egeland says the wealthy nations are not giving enough. "They are stingy" says he.

Well, in the case of France, he is quite correct. Perhaps even in the case of Germany as well. But certainly not in the case of the United States. Nor indeed Canada, or Australia. Not even in the case of tiny Israel.

So we must look to the source whence these words come. Egeland is employed by the UN, that great humanitarian organization that brought us Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur, and many stops in between. The man is an ass representing a stable full of asses.

And while on the subject of asses, the Vatican Newspaper was moved to find fault with the Israelis for not sending aid to Sri Lanka. Again, we must look to the source, because the entire article was bereft of truth. The Israelis offered an emergency response team of 150 persons, which Sri Lanka promptly refused. Nonetheless Israel shipped them 80 tons of food, water, medicine and clothing, with more on the way.

As to the response team. Thailand indicated they would welcome them, and that is where it is now. I await the Vatican's correction and/or apology. I will peruse the Italian press diligently, but probably in vain.

As I am writing this I see where a private welfare organization in Canada has already raised triple the entire French pledge, and we are only in the first day of collection.

But wait. How foolish of me not to understand. The UN clearly wishes to have vast amounts of money channeled through them so that we can have the south-east Asia version of "food for oil". I guess we can call it "suffering for food": the Asians suffer and the UN bureaucracy has lots of food for their personal banquet tables.

Does anyone know the Norwegian word for chutzpah?

A Day Of Fasting

2004-12-22T14:31:00.000-05:00

Today is a fast day commemorating the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tevet. That was the day, in the year 425 BCE, on which the armies of Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem. Some two and one half years later, on the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Tammuz, the walls were breached, Jerusalem fell, as did the Kingdom of the Jews. The following month, on the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, the Holy Temple, built by King Solomon, was destroyed. The Jews were exiled, where they remained for the next seventy years.

And so this day, which this year happens to coincide with the 22nd day of December, marks, for observant Jews, a time of sadness, fasting, introspection and repentance. We Jews have been commemorating this day for over 2400 years.

But this is not intended as an article on religion, nor on rabbinics. My point is simply this: A thousand years before Muhammad, the First Temple of the Jews was destroyed. From that day forward we have pined for Jerusalem and our Holy Temple.

In the year 70 CE, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple. They then marched to the battle cry, HEP! HEP! Hierusalem est perdita - Jerusalem is destroyed. For almost 2000 years the Jews were exiled once again. However a core remained throughout the entire land of Israel. Statehood was denied us, but since the promise to Abraham, the land is us, and we are the land.

Well, by the grace of G-d, a state is no longer denied to us. Indeed, the Jews have returned to that holiest of cities, to Jerusalem. And there we shall remain. Forever.

Thanks, But No Thanks

2004-12-03T11:11:00.000-05:00

The December 3, 2004, editorial in the Boston Globe suggests that James Baker or, failing that, Dennis Ross mediate between Israel and the Palestinians.

I take it that is the same James Baker who had such laudatory things to say about Jews in general and about Israelis in particular, during his years as Secretary of State, and afterwards. He may be a great arm-twister, but certainly not a mediator. All the more so when his even-handedness is greatly in question. Besides, what success did he ever achieve in the Middle East? The answer is nil.

Then we have Dennis Ross, he of the recent book extolling his virtues as Special Envoy. An ex post facto apologia remains just that. And no amount of verbiage detracts from his abject failure at achieving anything concrete.

But the most ridiculous cut of all is to say that President Bush may not be suited to mediate and that is why we need one or other of Baker and Ross. It seems to me the President has a good understanding of the present situation. He knows that truth is not a widely recognized concept among the Palestinians seeking power. And as his recent speech in Ottawa pointed out, pressuring the Israelis for further concessions will achieve nothing. It has been tried and failed. Indeed it seems to me the President realizes that personal intervention is not what is needed. What is needed is a change in attitude, outlook and approach by the Palestinians. A true democracy with a good dose of rectitude would go a long way in solving the problems of the Palestinians. Then other things would follow.

We must not lose sight of with whom we are dealing. Abu Mazen (Abbas), realizing how fragile life is, returns to Ramallah after the attempt on his life and vows to follow in the footsteps of Arafat. I know he denied there was an attempt on his life, but even my youngest grandchild saw through that one. And everyone knows what following in the footsteps of Arafat means.

Marwan Barghouti sits in an Israeli jail. He gives a solemn undertaking to not run in the elections, and vows support for the Fatah candidate, Abu Mazen. Then, several days later he files papers to contest the election. Is that the fellow whose word Israel is expected to take?

And while I am thinking of it: If all the Palestinians ever wanted was Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) with East Jerusalem, and Gaza, why did they not take it in the 19 years that it was held by the Jordanians and Egypt? The answer is simple. They want it all. They want, as Achmed Shukairy used to say, the Jews gone or in the sea.

So, thanks, but no thanks. You can keep Baker and Ross. On this one I prefer the boss's approach.

Thumbs Up For Julie Burchill

2004-11-30T15:04:00.000-05:00

Julie Burchill has a wonderful piece in the Sunday Times about her recent first trip to Israel. It is a must read for both those who support Israel and those who do not. For those who support Israel, because you will realize you do not stand alone. For those who do not, because you will hopefully realize what your prejudices and hatred are causing you to miss.

The French

2004-11-29T09:43:00.000-05:00

Someone sent me several witticisms concerning France. Among them were two quotations from Mark Twain:

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.

France has usually been governed by prostitutes."

The reason I bring it up is because I read that according to AFP the Israeli Ambassador, Nissim Zvili, has written letters to the Municipality of Clamart, to the state prosecutor’s office and to Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin. He requested that the Arafat death certificate be corrected to show his place of birth as Egypt and not Jerusalem.

One may say who cares where he was born, as long as he is dead. Nonetheless it should be corrected because of the symbolic implications. All biographers agree that his place of birth was Cairo, but the French base their revision on the fact that when his daughter was born the forms included his self-serving assertion that he was born in Jerusalem.

Records of births and deaths are the purview of the French Interior Minister, Dominique de Villepin. Does the name sound familiar? It should. In his previous incarnation he was the French Foreign Minister. You remember the fellow who flew around the world in less than 80 days to try and persuade all and sundry not to support the US and its coalition partners’ plans with respect Iraq. But as Norman Scwartzkopf aptly pointed out: "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

And so Dominique stopped traveling and became Interior Minister. What is it the French say: plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose. Or to paraphrase: whatever the office, the man is the same.

I think it was Regis Philbin who quipped, "the only time the French want us to go to war is when the Germans are sitting in Paris drinking coffee." But that is not quite accurate. When France’s former colonies are concerned, and without UN approbation, they are quite prepared to go in shooting. Remember the Ivory Coast, which is only the latest example.

Yes, Mark Twain was right.

Canadian Government Bureaucracy

2004-11-25T10:21:00.000-05:00

I have had a Canadian passport since the mid-50s. Generally, every five years I get my photo taken, arrange for the guarantor, fill up the form and line up with the other sheep to get the latest edition of the travel document. I believe originally I paid five or ten dollars. Today, if you want it sent by mail, it costs $85.00 However, should you wish to pick it up in person it costs $95.00. (As the late Jack E Leonard used to say: "I just tell 'em, I don't explain 'em".)

Off my wife and I went to the local Passport office. We were directed to a small room where you show your documentation and are assigned a number. We waited patiently, and when our turn arrived presented our documents. I was asked for my birth certificate and handed it over only to be told that since it was a Quebec certificate issued in 1984 it was not recognized. I would need one issued after January of 1994.

My 1999 passport had been issued on the strength of that birth certificate, as borne out by the expiring passport which I also produced. I was no less me that day than I was in 1999, and born in the same place and of the same parents as was the case in 1999. Thus I found it rather strange if not illogical that a valid birth certificate would cease to be a valid certificate because of its date of issue.

I asked to be advised of the statute or regulation that suddenly rendered me a non-person at which point I was issued with a number and told to ask for a supervisor.

Off we went to the next chamber, and waited for our numbers to be called (or rather flashed on a sign, to be more precise). Some forty minutes later the magic moment arrived. My wife, whose number was one ahead of mine, went off to her station and I to mine.

Again I asked basically the same questions and was told to take it up with the government of Quebec. Since I was applying for a Canadian passport, and so far as I was aware Quebec did not have the power to issue passports, that line of reasoning was beyond me. In response to my query about the statute or regulation that was applicable I was told to submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act. When I pointed out how ludicrous that was, I was informed, soto voce, that it was not a statute or regulation, but rather a departmental "policy decision".

So there I was, on the far side of sixty, and my government will not acknowledge that I was born in the manner and to the parents that they have always acknowledged in the past. Are they saying that my nine previous passports, which they issued, were based on a lie? Or are they saying that while I may have existed in the past, my existence is now in question because of a "policy decision" that was made pursuant to something that I must determine by applying under the Freedom of Information Act?

The real problem is even if I apply, how can they respond to someone who apparently does not exist because his birth certificate was issued in the wrong year?

Since I am quoting comedians today, it was Red Buttons who used to say: "Strange things are happening."

The Meaning of Democracy

2004-11-24T16:59:00.000-05:00

To paraphrase the late Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government ever devised, save for all the others. Certainly it has its drawbacks, but it is a fair measure of the will of the preponderance of the population.

As a Canadian, I trust I will be forgiven my lack of comprehension of the American left, who, ironically, are generally referred to as Democrats. It seems that many of them would like to leave their country now that George W. has been reelected. This after he was elected with a majority in excess of 51%. That is true chutzpah. By the way Bubba never even came close to a majority. I believe the best he got was 48%.

Clearly those who are proposing to vote a second time, with their feet, are not serious. It is like Alex Baldwin's threat during the 2000 election, but so far as I am aware he is still in the US. Or again, Robert Redford saying he would move to Ireland if Dubya was reelected. It seems he too is staying put. But should he actually go through with it, Ireland's loss would be America's gain.

Will the liberals never grow up? They behave like children who, if they do not win the game, take their ball and go home.

The fact is the majority of Americans voted for George Bush. Unless my understanding is wholly deficient, that is an end to the matter. The country comes together and works for the greater good of the nation as a whole. To do otherwise is an invitation to anarchy.

The British parliamentary system has a quaint name for the losing side. It is referred to as the 'loyal opposition'. Loyal not to the winning side, but to the nation. It seems to me, an admitted outsider, that if the Democrats are ever to come back (albeit, from my perspective it would be no great loss if they did not) they will have to come to terms with this concept.

To paraphrase Churchill yet again: If they open a quarrel between the past and the present, they will find that they have lost the future.