in defence of the righteous

2006-08-31T15:02:00.000+01:00

Good versus Evil: Harper Gets It

Thomas Walkom gives us a revealing (yet ultimately wrong) insight into Stephen Harper's stance on Israel.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1156542610130&call_pageid=970599119419

It would seem that Prime Minister Harper understands that there is 'Good' and there is 'Evil'.

This is an uncomfortable position for Mr Walkom. Whether it is emanates from a feeling of guilt that our Western Society is so much more affluent than the rest of the world, the belief that there are two sides to every argument, the repulsion of the presumed 'religious' association with the terms 'Good' and 'Evil', or an overwhelming disdain for all things Western (American), Walkom (as with Moonbats in general) is uncomfortable with a moral stance.

For the Moonbat terms like 'Good' and 'Evil' are relative. In other words, there is no such thing as 'Good' or 'Evil' because nobody can stand in judgment of another.

What is 'Evil'?

In Canadianna's excellent piece, 'Hezbollah Are People Too' the author states:

http://canadianna.blogspot.com/2006/08/hezbollah-are-people-too.html

"...Evil is pure immorality (cruelty, violence, ruthless, savagery, depravity, absence of sympathy). It isn't by accident, or without forethought. Evil is repetitive, sustained immorality by choice..."

Not only is it possible to determine 'Good' and 'Evil': it is also critical. Without making this determination we are left in a moral quagmire. We are then forced to react in proportion to acts of terror. After all, in the Moonbat world of moral equivalence, we are only as good as the terrorists and any 'over-response' only legitimizes the initial act of terrorism.

This is why the Moonbats were so quick to rage about Israel's supposed lack of 'proportionality' in the recent Lebanese-Israeli conflict. They were unwilling to accept the obvious. They were unwilling to accept that Israel was at a war with an Evil terrorist organisation bent on the eradication of the Israeli state.

But there is positive news: we are the 'Good' guys.

No that doesn't mean we are perfect. However, what it does mean is that when we are confronted with Evil we should not worry about 'proportionality'. What we should worry about is using our full capability to eradicate those who would be so willing to eradicate us.

-Canuck-

2006-08-29T19:44:00.000+01:00

A Method to the Madness

Niall Ferguson writes an excellent piece on what the recently arrested terrorists wanted to accomplish:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ferguson28aug28,0,1785725.column?coll=la-opinion-columnists

-Canuck-

2006-08-29T00:23:00.000+01:00

Political Masochism Hezbollah Style

Canadian Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj resigns his post as deputy foreign affairs critic after suggesting Canada enter dialogue with Hezbollah.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060822/lebanon_canada_060823/20060824?hub=Canada

Why are so many politicians failing to understand that we are at war with Islamo-Fascist terrorists?

-Canuck-

2006-08-22T08:14:00.000+01:00

When in India - Don't Eat Here

A chain of restaurants named after Adolf Hitler?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060821/od_nm/india_hitler_dc_2

What next?

-Canuck-

2006-08-22T07:58:00.000+01:00

France: No Shock little Awe

Cottshop sums up the French 'Peace Keeping' effort in Lebanon:

http://sacredscoop.com/?p=226

-Canuck-

2006-08-13T09:08:00.000+01:00

Death of a Moonbat

Angelo Frammartino was a 24 year old Italian member of ARCI. He was killed in Jerusalem's Arab district in the east of the city on Thursday by Palestinian youths who mistook him for a Jew.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060811-055217-3216r

Angelo was described in the press as a Pacificist, Peace Activist and Communist who also supported the intifada.

Before he left for Italy Mr Frammartino stated, "I never dreamt of condemning the resistance, the blood of the Vietnamese, the blood of nations under colonial occupation, or the blood of Palestinian youths from the first intifada."

Excuse me? A 'Peace Activist' who supports the intifada: murder by organised terrorism.

It's a shame that a taste of his own medicine left Mr Frammartino in the way the intifada has left so many: dead in the street.

It's also extremely ironic.

-Canuck-

2006-08-10T06:30:00.000+01:00

Dear Moonbat

All we are saying is, give war a chance.

Not that I am bloodthirsty, far from it. It's just that a cessation of violence would only give Hezbollah a chance to re-arm and we would be right back here in 6 months time. Churchill didn't give Hitler a chance to re-arm. Do you think that would have been a wise move?

I don't.

I know there are legions of anti-American and anti-Israeli Moonbats. But this isn't a case where the masses are right. Even Hitler won a popular election - did that make him 'right'?

Sometimes common sense has to rein supreme - even if it bucks the popular trend. As a friend of mine reminded me 'it only takes one person to make a difference'.

I wonder that if the unbalanced journalism of today existed during the Second World War would Hitler not have won. During the Blitz a similar number of bombs that struck London in 1940 have been fired during this campaign at Northern Israel. Unlike Olmert, Churchill did not have to concern himself with press editorial. What he worried about was winning the War against an evil despot. Do you know that about 300,000 Germans died in Dresden?

Quick: dig up Churchill - he's a war criminal!

Uhhh sure!

Assume as well as a Moonbat you are Jew or for even more fun Gay or how about a Gypsy. Do you think the Brown-shirts would have spared you their campaign of extermination?

Think again.

Hezbollah's stated goal is the destruction of Israel. Hamas has trumped this by stating that they, given the opportunity, will kill all the Jews living in the Occupied lands: Israel.

But never mind. Give peace a chance. Break out the Woodstock CDs. Read the Guardian. Wear a cool shirt. Hug a few trees. Whatever makes you feel morally superior.

-Canuck-

2006-08-10T05:33:00.000+01:00

9/11: Popular Mechanics vs Moonbat Mythology

If you haven't read this well you really should.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

-Canuck-

2006-08-06T08:20:00.000+01:00

The Passion of the Mel

By now you have already heard about Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic outburst.

Shameful? Yes.

A cry for help? Probably.

What is more shameful is the two-faced people who pretend to be outraged by Mel’s anti-Semitism but are at the same time outraged by Israel defending itself against state-sponsored terrorist actors. Terrorists that aim to bring about the destruction of the worlds only predominantly Jewish nation.

-Canuck-

2006-07-29T19:18:00.000+01:00

Why Do Radical Muslims Want To Kill Us?

And why is there so little recogntion that we are in a Global War on Terrorism?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&hl=en

-Canuck-

2006-07-24T21:13:00.000+01:00

The 'Jeninization' of Lebanon

At first the Liberal press did not know what to make of Israel's response to the kidnapping of two and the murder of eight IDF soldiers just south of the frontier between Lebanon and Israel. The violation of international law was so flagrant that there was little mileage to be had in the usual anti-Israel editorial that is passed as news in both press and television.

But as the situation carries on the usual refrains are starting to be heard and not surprisingly from the same sources.

Shortly after Jenin hit the headlines, Janine di Giovanni of the Times wrote regarding the IDF: "Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life."

The following day The Guardian commented that Israel had acted in a way that was every bit as repellent as Osama Bin Laden's attack on September 11th.

It was only later that a few (and only a few) voices from the Liberal media began to admit that they got wrong. Phil Reeves of The independent wrote, "It was clear that the debate over the awful events in Jenin four months ago is still dominated by whether there was a massacre, even though it has long been obvious that one did not occur."

The Independent's Robert Fisk has today ( http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1193097.ece ) once again laid the allegation of war crimes at Israel.

Predictable.

-Canuck-

2006-07-12T07:09:00.000+01:00

Chris Davies: Crocodile Tears

Poor Chris Davies. Seems that it's Israel that is to blame for his anti-semitic outbursts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1770727,00.html

My favorite line is how despair motivates suicide bombers. Gee Chris I guess the 72 Virgins, $50,000 dollar cash 'memorial', and the terrorist support network which provides the bombs and direction really has nothing to do with it.

Closer to home, just how desperate where the 7/7 terrorists? How many meals had they missed? How deprived they must have been!

When are people like Chris Davies going to see Suicide Bombing for what it is? A crime of hate.

-Canuck-

2006-07-12T06:49:00.000+01:00

Liberal MEP Resigns After Anti-Semitic Slur

Chris Davies was the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the European parliament but has resigned after telling a Jewish constituent to "enjoy wallowing in your own filth".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1768176,00.html

This all happened back in May but what I still find shocking is that the Liberal Democrats are not severing their ties with Mr Davies. Sir Menzies Campbell, head of the Liberal Democrats, has asked Mr Davies to stay on as Lib Dem's environmental spokesman. What sort of message is this sending to the voters of the UK?

I know the message it is sending me. But I suppose most sensible people were never going to vote Lib Dem anyway.

-Canuck-

2006-07-03T04:19:00.000+01:00

Shock News: Not Every European is a Moonbat!

Henryk M. Broder's article in Spiegel actually discusses the situation between Israel and Hamas with common sense........

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,424152,00.html

Let's have more of this.

-Canuck-

2006-06-24T13:06:00.000+01:00

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.

2006-06-23T23:55:00.000+01:00

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.

2006-06-21T23:49:00.000+01:00

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.