in defence of the righteous

a moonbat free zone

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Moonbat Salute

Who are the Moonbats? They are those that forsake facts and evidence in order to maintain a consistent anti-American and anti-Israel stance.

Care for a few examples?

Kim Petersen, (co-editor of dissidentvoice.org http://www.dissidentvoice.org) says, "But wait! Israel is guilty of Nazism, and the US through complicity, because they steal the territory of the indigenous Palestinians and squeeze them into non-viable cantons."

Oh really Kim? I guess the Israeli-Jews shouldn't feel victimized by the events of the Holocaust after all they are really no better. Perhaps instead we should celebrate the Holocaust with glee? I mean after all - it is the offspring of Holocaust survivors who are guilty of this new age Nazism is it not?

I also salute your keen Moonbat ability to ignore historical facts. Let's ignore the Jewish people's two thousand year history in the region. Let's ignore how the Palestinian refugee problem began during Israel's War of Independence. A war in which Israel's Arab neighbors vowed to "drive the Jews into the sea" and urged the Palestinians to leave Israel for the two weeks it would take give the israelis swimming lessons. Let's ignore the ugly truth of the real Nazis who starved and then slaughtered 6 million Jews (and others) in industrial killing factories.

Kim you truly are a first-class Moonbat.

On Jonathan's Cook website (http://www.jkcook.net) when discussing the history of Anti-Semitism (something near and dear to his heart it seems) he argues: "The Middle East's dirty work is being done by Israel on behalf of our modern, global prince: the United States. Whether it is testing weapons in the field against Palestinians, selling arms to the most disreputable states on the planet, or arm- twisting and intimidating Arab neighbors to keep them in line, Israel is the regional strongman. It backs up its threats with an awesome arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. That is why it is so despised and feared."

Oh really Mr Cook.

Seems to me the Israelis are despised by their Arab neighbors for having the audacity to announce independence in 1948.

So you are telling us that Israel has sold weapons to Iran, the former Iraqi regime, or North Korea? I can only assume those are the countries you are referring to because you don't actually say. How odd that those countries are amongst those yelling loudest for the destruction of Israel.

Doesn't really pass a 'gut-check' does it?

I am sure that if the Iranian leadership follow through on their promise to end the Zionist regime in a great storm you will be the first to blame Israel for their own demise.

Another Moonbat, very wordy and lacking common sense.

Moonbat word of the week 'Hyperbole' - keep an eye out for it.

More to come.

Friday, June 23, 2006

World Cup: FIFA supports Anti-Semitism

Israel isn't playing in this years World Cup. No surprise really. You see, for the rest of the planet qualifying for the World Cup means competing against countries in your region in order to advance.

But not for Israel.

Why?

Because Israel's Arab neighbors refuse to play ball with the 'Zionist regime'.

So that would mean a forfeit and easy entry every four years for the plucky Israeli team right?

Wrong.

Rather than forfeit those matches to Israel FIFA forces the tiny country to qualify through the European zone. This means that Israel competes against soccer giants such as Italy, Spain and England (Go England!) rather than the relatively weak Saudi Arabian or Iranian elevens.

Both Saudi Arabia and Iran managed to qualify without having to suffer the humiliation of losing to the talented Israeli side.

But that's just the beginning of FIFA's shame:

......for an excellent overview of this situation please click the following:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/8254.htm


Moreover, at the World Cup waving the Israeli flag has now become a political statement:




Check out the following for some excellent feedback on the Ghanaian players 'audacity' of waving an Israeli flag:

http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/06/19/anti-ghana-ism/

One wonders what next for the Beautiful Game.





Wednesday, June 21, 2006

CUPE Ontario's Jewish Problem

As a Canadian living in the United Kingdom it was with a great deal of bewilderment that I learned of CUPE Ontario's decision to boycott Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/Canada/national/2006/05/27/cupe-sat.html

It is interesting that on the CUPE Ontario website (for those that don't know CUPE is the Canadian Union of Public Employees) they state that the vote was against the "Apartheid Wall" that separates the West Bank from Israel proper. However the resolution itself is much more detailed and includes:

1. With Palestine solidarity and human rights organization, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices.
2. Support the international campaign of boycott, divesting and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
3. Call on CUPE National to commit to research into Canadian involvement in the occupation and call on the CLC to join us in lobbying against the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state and call for the immediate dismantling of the wall.

So what assumptions are CUPE Ontario making in these resolutions:

1. Israel is by definition an Apartheid state.

2. Israel is not willing to recognize a Palestinian state.

3. The one-sided nature of the resolution implies that Israel is solely responsible for the hostilities in the region.

4. The "Apartheid" Wall was constructed solely as a means of segregation and to facilitate the oppression of the Palestinians living in the West Bank.

5. Israel has a moral duty to grant Palestinian refugees citizenship.

I want to tackle (as best as I can) the above assumptions:

1. Israel is by definition an Apartheid state.

What is Apartheid?

Apartheid was the political system in South Africa from 1948 to the early 1990s that segregated different citizens within the nation and gave privileges to those of European origin.

Let's be generous and realize that CUPE Ontario with reference to Israel is altering the definition from European to Jew. So is Israel by definition an Apartheid state?

Within Israel, Jews are a majority, but as full citizens the Arab minority have voting rights and hold seats in the government. Within Israel itself there is no Apartheid in place.

In the West Bank the situation is different. The segregation of the Palestinians living in the West Bank occurred during Israel's War of independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

To make a complex and long story short the War (a battle for survival for the Israelis) left 700,000 Palestinian Arabs displaced and 900,000 Jewish refugees displaced from Arab nations. About 600,000 of the displaced Jews found a welcoming home in the newly created nation of Israel. The Palestinian refugees (for the most part unwelcome by the Arab states) were left primarily in the West Bank.

Until this day no Israeli leader has taken the step to Annex the West Bank territory and thus grant Israeli citizenship to the Palestinian refugees living there. One reason that the Israeli leadership is unwilling to do this is that the Palestinian refugees remain intensely hostile to Israel. According to an October 2003 pole, fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle [terrorism] against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created.

More recently the Palestinian refugees elected Hamas (listed by Canada as a terrorist organization) as their political representatives. Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist and are one of a number of terrorist organizations operating from the West Bank which fund and support terror operations targeting Israeli citizens.

A second reason is that any attempt by Israel to Annex the West Bank territory without a negotiated peace settlement would be seen by the international community as an illegal 'land grab'.

In the meantime the West Bank remains a territory in dispute and the resident Palestinian refugees are neither Israeli citizens nor citizens of a Palestinian state.

While the situation for the Palestinian refugees is indeed dire it does not equate to Apartheid. Why? Because the Palestinian refugees are not citizens of Israel. They are refugees living in an area of dispute represented by terrorists intent on the destruction of Israel.

Moreover, Israel treats its Arab citizens fairly. There is no equivalence to the colour line seen in Apartheid South Africa.

2. Israel is not willing to recognize a Palestinian state.

There have been several peace offers over the years. The most recent being Camp David in the summer of 2000. Unfortunately those offers have been rejected by the Palestinian side.

Nearly all unbiased observers agree that Yasser Arafat's rejection of the land-for-peace offer made by Ehud Barak at Camp David in the summer of 2000 was indefensible. Not because Israel offered everything that the Palestinians had asked for - it hadn't. The rejection was indefensible because the Israelis made an offer of 95% (aprox) of the disputed territory and there was no counter-proposal made by Arafat. Arafat simply walked away.

This was not the only land-for-peace proposal offered by the Israelis over the years but it does underscore the fact that Israel is willing to settle a negotiated peace and recognize a neighboring Palestinian state.

One could argue that the Israelis need to offer more but one could also argue that the Palestinians need to offer something.

3. Israel is solely responsible for the hostilities in the region.

Even a casual observer will attest that this assumption ignores the day-to-day events in Israel and the disputed territory. It's simply untrue.

4. The "Apartheid" Wall was constructed solely as a means of segregation and to facilitate the oppression of the Palestinians living in the West Bank.

The "Apartheid" Wall has had a negative impact on the daily lives of many refugees living in the West Bank. This is undeniable.

But it has also saved many lives. The Wall was built under the remit of increased security for Israel's citizens who have suffered over 900 terrorist murders since September 2000.

Indeed, since the wall has been completed, many planned terror attacks were prevented. Terrorists now find it more challenging to complete their murderous intentions. This can only help facilitate peace. Statistics are indicative of a 30% drop in Homicide Bombings in 2003 as compared with 2002.

Moreover the path of any final barrier between the two states is up for negotiations should the Palestinians decide to make a peace offer.

Once again to say that the "Apartheid" Wall was built solely as a means of segregation and to facilitate the oppression of the Palestinians living in the West Bank ignores the impact on terrorism that the barrier has had. Even with the wall innocent Israelis are being slaughtered by Hamas and the other terrorist organizations situated in the disputed territories but with lesser frequency - thanks to the so called "Apartheid" Wall.

5. Israel has a moral duty to grant Palestinian refugees citizenship.

The Palestinian refugees living in the disputed territory are currently stateless.

The refugees do have historic ties and some were even born in what is now Israel; however, one can think of many instances where a persons heritage is no guarantee of citizenship. Many Canadians trace their heritage back to Germany, Ukraine, France, and China (to name just a few) and are not able to obtain dual citizenship.

Furthermore, none of the refugees were born in the nation of Israel some were born in British Mandate Palestine and many more were born in the disputed territories.

Those demanding a right of return for Palestinian refugees also ignore the history of Israel which accepted 600,000 Jewish refugees who were expelled from Arab nations after Israeli independence.

World-wide over 6.5 Million Palestinians can claim some connection to the land which now forms Israel. Any right of return to this many non-Jews would completely change the nations demographic and contravene Israel's right to self-determination.

So does Israel have a moral duty to grant Palestinian refugees citizenship?

No because Israel has the right to protect self-determination for its citizens.

In Conclusion

I hope CUPE Ontario's members will rescind this unbalanced resolution and ratify a resolution that:

Encourages both the Israelis and Palestinians to recognize each nations right to existence and self-determination.


Keep it simple.