This blog will be going through some changes as the layout is updated. Please bear with me. In the meantime, check out the following blogs -
Jack’s Newswatch: Good news aggregator. Also good Middle East information … from a consevative point of view
Dr Dawg’s Blawg: Good analysis on the Isreal incursion into Lebanon … from a progressive point of view
Psyhopolitik: Libertarian blog on American and International politics
The Jerusalem Post has an excellent article on the Druse (also spelled Druze) of Lebanon:
On Friday, the residents of the mainly Druse town of Peki’in were getting ready to celebrate the marriage of one of their sons to a young woman from nearby Beit Jann.
…
Three hours before the feast, two Katyusha rockets fell on the neighborhood as the guests began to gather. One rocket scored a direct hit on the roof of the home where Salman and Dina Ali live with their children Hussein, Rana and Sari.
Galib Kheir, head of the town’s tourism department, wanted to know why no members of the media had came to see the damage that Peki’in had suffered over the past six days. It is a question also asked by town engineer Halim Muhana.
Underlying the question, which is asked with obvious resentment or hurt, is the unspoken accusation that no one cares about Peki’in because it isn’t Jewish.
The leaders of Peki’in stress that Hizbullah does not distinguish between Jews and Druse. “As far as Nasrallah is concerned, we are all Israelis,” said Galib Kheir. “He doesn’t care who he hits just as long as he hits.”
Such are the casualties of war that are forgotten during ideological battles and the media focus on Beirut. As a Druse expatriate once said to me, “we try to stay out of it†- yet this does not prevent them from taking intentional fire from one side and unacknowledged unintentional fire from the other side.
Far from being mainstream Muslims, the Druze practice a breakaway form of Islam heavily influenced by Christianity and Greek philosophy. In heavy contrast to surrounding monotheistic faiths, women are often regarded spiritually equal to or greater than men. Central tenets of Druse faith and at times public allegiance are still largely secretive out of fear of persecution in predominantly-Muslim nations. The relatively small sect resides primarily in the middle east (Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan) with satellite populations across Africa and the West.
A furor is growing over seven Canadians killed in Lebanon by Israeli airstrikes:
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Seven Canadians from the same Montreal family, including four young children, were killed in Lebanon on Sunday when Israeli aircraft bombed a house in the south of the country, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp said.
A Canadian foreign ministry spokeswoman confirmed the deaths and said three people were hurt. But she said the incident happened when the house in the town of Aitaroun was shelled.
Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay said Ottawa was sending ships to help evacuate up to 40,000 Canadians believed to be in Lebanon.
The CBC named the dead as Ali El-Akhras, his wife Amira and their four children aged one, four, six and eight. The seventh family member was Ali’s uncle, also named Ali, who had moved to Montreal from Lebanon 15 years ago.
At Small Dead Animals, I got into a semi-heated discussion with Kate’s staunchly pro-Israeli readership about the relatively muted conservative response to the death of Lebanese civilians. The exchange was relatively civil - not at all like the venom being spewed at the Globe and Mail. Please take a minute to read some of the comments on the G&M discussion board. Israeli expansionism will never gain favour on this blog, and I do believe that using airstrikes on suburban areas is extremely dubious; however some of the accusations being levelled at Israel and PM Stephen Harper are simply unfair. Time to address two of them:
Accusation #1: Stephen Harper supports or is indifferent to the death of Lebanese-Canadians
Some Canadians have implied that Stephen Harper’s statement “I think Israel’s response under the circumstances has been measured.” is an endorsement of civilian attacks. However this story was reported on the 14th, two days before any known Canadian casualties. Posters are attacking Harper as valuing Israeli lives over Canadian lives before he’s had the chance to react … but not before Canada pledged to send boats to help evacuate Canadians remaining in Lebanon. The < 24 hour turnaround represents a faster response to imperiled Canadians than the previous government ever offered. Harper has not made any statement since this story broke so it is premature for commenters like Jim Roth to assume his indifference.
Accusation #2: Israel intentionally targets civilians
Right or wrong, IAF airstrikes were targeting Hezbollah infrastructure rather than civilians. The Jerusalem Post has reported that the only homes directly targeted were those of senior Hezbollah officials. Other civilian deaths have been accidental (eg Israeli gunboats misfiring at relay stations for al-Manar television - a Hizbullah propaganda channel). The IDF often drops leaflets warning citizens to evacuate an area before striking a Hezbollah target, which has keep the number of civilian casualties relatively low. Concerning for the dead Canadians, Israel has formally apologized to Ottawa and is conducting an investigation. A similar investigation is being conducted for the killing of Lebanese soldiers, who are also not official IDF targets. And let’s face it - if Israel intentionally attacked civilians then far more than 140 would be dead by now.
My sincere condolences to the family members of those lost in this unfortunate attack. May the memory of the dead not be clouded by the half-truths of ulterior political motives.
Do combatants in the middle east want peace?
As the violence in the middle east flares up once again, pundits and the public are intensifying the war of words over who is the blame for the cycle of violence. The only thing that most people can agree on is that, despite the indisputable human rights offenses on both sides, there is 1 side that is definitely in the right and justified in their uncivil response. For years I’ve battled both Pro-Arab and Pro-Israeli types who did not take kindly to the suggestion that their respective sides have no interest in peace.
But what is peace? When many people (myself included) speak of peace, we envision one more more identifiable groups/individuals coexisting harmoniously. Conflicts are resolved with words rather than guns. A mutual respect exists between all parties, as their special beliefs are secondary to some common principle that governs all groups. As the following quotations demonstrate, this westernized and romanticized view of peace can be the furthest thing from the minds of Arabs and Israelis alike:
Alleged Quotes from Arab/Muslim Leadership:
“Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.”
–Yasser Arafat, El Mundo, Caracas, Venezuela, February 11 1980“We may lose or win [tactically] but our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, to Palestine from the river (i.e. Jordan) to the sea (i.e. the Mediterranean). Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth.”
–Faisal Husseini, PA Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, Al-Safir (Lebanon), March 21 2001“Hamas still wants Palestine from the river to the sea — and believes in retaking the land from Jordan to the Mediterranean, including Israelâ€
–Yasser Mansour, Hamas candidate from Nablus, The Boston Globe, 17 January 2006“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.â€
–Covenant of the Hamas, Preamble, 1988
Alleged Quotes from Israeli/Jewish Leadership:
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
– David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.”
– David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.“Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”
– Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”
– Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
All of these quotes can be found from various sources on the web and in many cases have proper citation. Some of the speakers cited have at least publicly moderated their views but continued to support movements that operate on the same sentiment.
So let’s revisit the question – do combatants in the middle east want peace? The answer could actually be yes, since peace can by definition mean the absence of civil disturbance. For Hamas, Hezbollah and other militants stationed in Gaza / Lebanon, peace might mean 6.5 million Israelis swimming in the Dead Sea and the remaining population held under oppressive Islamic rule. For Israeli expansionists, peace could mean Palestinians displaced and under severe lock down similar to the apartheid enforced by one-time Israeli ally South Africa. Both scenarios would constitute genocide or a level of oppression that the West finds unacceptable; however both extreme outcomes would be “peacefulâ€. Obviously there will be peace if foes are completely subjugated or eliminated outright.
Typepad had a service hiccup yesterday that resulted in lost posts and/or comments. Any hosted service like Typepad is susceptible to this problem but that is little comfort to users who have to re-approve or repost content.
If you are a serious blogger who has been plagued by service disruptions or would like to have more control over your own content, consider this limited time offer.
Offer:
Perquisites:
Payment:
Setup Steps:
If your blog is selected then you will have to do the following:
Of course you will be guided for through all of these steps.
Sites currently hosted:
That is all. I’m looking for 2 (two) good blogs to host. Leave a comment here if you’re interested and/or want more information.
Update: Thanks for Jack’s Newswatch for the link. Those wishing to contact me privately can do so via admin-at-cynicsunlimited.com
Zinedine Zidane’s headbutt to Marco Materazzi was perhaps a fitting end to a generally ugly world cup tournament. Speculation is still raging about exactly what Materazzi could have done or said to provoke such a nasty response (which ultimately may have cost France the world cup, since Zidane received a red card for his efforts and thus was unable to participate in the final penalty shootout).
There is little sense passing judgement on Zidane or Materazzi before the truth is known. In the meantime, I found this mean-spirited little Flash game created by an Italian fan. Now you can BE Zidane x 10 and whack all the Materazzis you want. This game is far from the most sophisticated in its class of poor taste parodies, but it’s timely and will at least waste a few minutes of your time. Naturally this is classic Italian sportsmanship on display but that’s another story. Click on the picture below to begin ….
Update: Here’s an even better cartoonized game -
Recent issues involving the proliferation of radical Islam in Canada have resurrected the debate over whether assimilation creates a more stable nation than Canada’s current policy of multiculturalism. A brainchild of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, multiculturalism is constantly derided by conservatives and traditionalists as a divisive policy that divides people into groups and does not stress loyalty to the nation.
There are many often-parroted, perfectly logical reasons to strive for assimilation rather than embrace the concept of multiculturalism:
It has been my observation that the majority of people -immigrants and minorities included- state that full cultural assimilation is the ultimate scenario for Canada’s diversifying population. A quick browse through any of the “sinful” dance clubs in Toronto’s Richmond District or in “Americanized” movie theatres across the nation reveal large numbers of Chinese, Middle Easterners and others acting far more like Canadians than adherents of the “old world”. Indeed, few people travel halfway across the world to duplicate the repressive conditions they originally fled.
However multiculturalism will continue to prosper as an industry for one simple reason: Canada’s majority never has wanted and never will want assimilation
Huh?
“But the opposite was just written above”, you say. True. “But columnist after blogger campaigns on the premise that there should only be one Canadian culture without hyphenation!” you say. True. However, it can be easily demonstrated that many people who oppose multiculturalism simply use “assimilation” as an empty euphemism for subordination. Assimilation, unlike multiculturalism, is a two-way street. While arriving immigrants have to learn the language and culture of the locals in order to assimilate, locals must in turn embrace newcomers as equals and fellow countrymen. The 4th generation Irish/German/English Canadian must be prepared to accept that Chinese immigrants can move into his town, go to his bars, attend service at his churches, and perhaps even allow their offspring date his offspring. True assimilation removes the need for, say, affirmative action because John Q Angloid is nearly as likely to be working for the first generation immigrant as hiring him (to say nothing of culturally immersed second generation immigrants).
This is where many anti-multiculturalists draw the line. Assimilation, by definition, requires that little or no distinction be made between identifiable groups of people since the common denominator of culture makes those differences superficial. However there are Anglo-Saxons (and Nth generation Canadians who try to pass for Anglo-Saxon) who DO want strong distinctions to remain between groups. Prior to Trudeau’s implementation of multiculturalism, Canada had a bi-cultural system where “Canadians” could live in areas with differing languages, holidays and even laws. The unacknowledged native population and other segregated immigrant groups made the bi-cultural system multicultural in practice. Unmitigated by the oft-stated “evils” of socialism, secularism and political correctness, Canadians made their feelings about assimilation clear via the policies of pre-Trudeau governments and public responses to high-profile incidents:
Point made. It would seem that the fear of those “others” assimilating into the main population presented more of a threat than the current waves of neatly-ghettoized immigrants currently filling up the nation’s 3 major cities. After all, a capitalistic and assimilated society aims towards using the best possible resources for the jobs available. As delineated by Victor Davis Hansen in “Mexifornia”, third world migrants used to working dusk-till-dawn shifts under harsh conditions and for little pay are more attractive to potential employers than union-happy locals who want their creature comforts and know their rights. Similarly, university-educated foreigners whose credentials are not recognized by Canada make better cab drivers than local slackers who barely finished high school. From the perspective of a mildly-educated local, the influx of driven and/or highly-educated talent makes the idea of assimilation and the meritocracy it implies in a market-driven economy less attractive. And this before one factors in the far less logical factors like bigotry and the desire for “purity”.
The Bottom Line:
Hence, don’t assume those who oppose Multiculturalism are necessarily in favor of assimilation.
Recent Comments