Annapolis and the refugee question

We are witnessing another attempt at trying to find viable solution for the troubles in the Middle East. Whether it will be more successful than previous ones is yet to be seen.

Sifting through the blogosphere to see the general pulse of the reactions to today's events I found an interesting link on The Washington Note, a link to a letter that was addressed to President Bush and Secretary Rice, and is signed by an impressive list of heavyweight politicians, academicians, and other important personages. They present there a list od recommendations, like the creation of the two states, the redivision of Jerusalem, and so on. But one item in particular caught my attention:
* A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance."

I was always puzzled by this issue in the past. How can it be possible that there are Palestinian refugees, even actual refugee camps, still in existence 60 years after the creation of Israel and the flight of the original refugees? The majority of those people are not even alive any more, we are talking about second and third generation "refugees" - and I won't even get here into the issue of having people there from other Middle Eastern countries who voluntarily joined these refugees, to live with them and support them in their goals, whatever those may be. This happens to be a unique phenomenon in the world, and it would be a worthwhile project to thoroughly analyze it and look for the reasons behind it.

I cannot help comparing these Palestinians refugee issues to all the others I have observed throughout my life. I also consider myself a (former) refugee. My grandparents and parents in Eastern Europe were stripped of their wealth by the Communist regime, my grandparents actually physically deported one night with only the clothes on their backs, and so we, the younger ones, fled at the first opportunity to North America where we resettled and built a new life for ourselves. Over the decades I saw similar fates unfold, from Korea, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Somalia. My mother for years volunteered to help these newcomers to Canada resettle, sharing with them her experiences and expertise in coping with the new life. I remember our former Prime Minister Jean Chretien publicly announcing on TV that Canada will open its gates to such and such number of Palestinian refugees. Why did so few of them answer that call? I always wondered...

I always wondered why Jordan failed to resettle those who initially took refuge within its borders in 1948, after all roughly 50% of the Jordanian population is considered to be "Palestinians" with close family ties to people west of the Jordan river. What is more, I still cannot fully understand the reasons behind the events of "Black September", and the expulsion of said refugees from Jordan. Or the inability of Lebanon to accept and absorb some of those refugees, instead having massive refugee camps to this day, way up in the north of the country, like the Nahr el-Bared camp where those intense fights occurred earlier this year between the refugees and the Lebanese army. And why is it that all over in the rich Arab world, instead of taking these Palestinian refugees in, absorb them and resettle them, they exploit them, using them as cheap labour, making them live in squalor amidst the sparkle and abundance, and then send them back into those artificially maintained "refugee camps" when they tire of them.

And finally, how can you call people "refugees", whose parents already were born where they are now? It would not even occur to me to consider my children or my grandchildren who were born here in Canada "refugees". What an odd situation where second and third generations of people still need to be considered for resettlement.

But let us return to this issue that was touched upon in the open letter:
* A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance."

Refugees in all corners of the world feel a "deep sense of injustice", including myself. Yet I made sure that I did not poison my children's soul with it. The world has seen much worse tragedies than my family's or of those Palestinians fleeing out of possible harm's way in 1948. What about the refugees of Rwanda or present day's Darfur, who not only lost everything but also witnessed their families being butchered? Rest assured, they were and will be taken care of, resettled, building a new life for themselves somewhere, while the Palestinian refugee camps will see a fourth generation being born and raised as "refugees". I wonder why...?

The above excerpt from the open letter asks for both financial compensation and resettlement assistance. It is not clear who does it mean to be targeted for this task. Should it be entirely the responsibility of Israel to step up to it? Then what about the Jewish refugees, and I don't mean the victims of the European Holocaust, but the close to a million refugees who fled from their ancestral lands all over the Islamic Middle East, often literally fleeing for their lives? To quote: "As a matter of law and equity, no just, comprehensive Middle East peace can be reached without recognition of and redress for the uprooting, under Islamic regimes, of centuries-old Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa." Israel, having already the experience in absorbing and resettling the survivors of the Holocaust, absorbed and resettled these refugees from Arab lands in a matter of fact way, without much fanfare. Yet, aren't they entitled to redress and compensation the same way as the Palestinian refugees are? Why is there no mention of them in the open letter?

There are, of course, answers for the above questions, just that they are hidden in the murky cesspools of politics and ideological warfare. One thing is sure, blame lies somewhere for those still flourishing Palestinian refugee camps, for the generations of refugees kept in poverty by their fabulously rich brethren, raised on a steady diet of hatred, used as cannon fodder, or more accurately live bombs, in a blind war against "The Jews". When things will settle and the victims of this decades old injustice will recuperate their senses enough so they can look around, no longer blinded by the propaganda that keeps shaking the red flag of "Zionism" in front of them, they will realize that it is not "the Jews" who are the true cause of their plight. I wonder what social upheavals will ensue when that happens. I wonder...

The final goal of the Al Qaeda Jihad, spelled out...

Wow!!! I just chanced on a video in which Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya Al-Liby explains in crystal clear words the true reason for their Jihad.
---

Al Gore, the environment, and the presidency

Interesting controversy surrounds 2008 US presidential candidate, Al Gore. True, he was awarded this year's Nobel prize based on his work in raising awareness on global warming. But, boy, is that topic controversial! I am not talking about the opinions of average citizen facing average citizen. Top scientists are questioning the accuracy of the data in his presentations and the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and criticize the choice of Gore for the prize. (Well, the Nobel prize committee can be criticized for a number of their previous blund..., ahem, choices.)

By now most everybody is aware of the fact that the film became subject of legal action in the UK. The courts then found that the film was indeed misleading, pockmarked by inaccuracies, some provable, others questionable, and decided that it carried a fair amount of political propaganda.

If you are one of those who is still itching to read what those inaccuracies they found in the film are, here they are. I lifted them off of the website of the UK New Party, you can visit their site and see the full original article there.

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Now, to return to my own opining again, it does seem rather suspect that all this hoopla arose so conveniently just before Mr Gore's announcement of his entering the electoral race. After all, good publicity or bad, it doesn't really matter. Any publicity is GOOD for the long run (think of Paris Hilton...). I am just wondering whether publicity of this sort is befitting someone who vies for one of the most influential positions in the Western world. If people will turn a blind eye to the inaccuracies and praise (venerate) him for what he represents in the present day cult of "Human Made Environmental Disaster", then what differentiates the environmentalists from the religious?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to create the impression that I reject the idea of man's negative impact on the environment. I am totally for continuing the efforts to clean up our act and clean up the world. Up to now I did not have any intention to question (openly, that is) any claims the environmental movement presented regarding the urgency of the situation, even when observing their political gains and growing clout in some countries. After all, it doesn't hurt to become as clean as possible, as soon as possible. Stepping up the efforts to develop clean, cheap sources of energy, finding solutions to our garbage issues, etc., can only benefit all of us. And if the world will still keep on getting warmer after that, at least we know that it is not our fault. But I do not like to see the issue being hijacked for personal gain.

I am sure Al Gore is not the only one to have resorted to such practices, people are human after all. I am certain that there were other mis-uses anywhere where Green Parties made gains. But his position is too visible. Past US presidents and/or candidates were scrutinized and chastised for things like the smoking of an occasional joint in their distant reckless youth. Shouldn't people scrutinize the methods presidential candidates use to gain people's sympathy and support? And if irregularities are found, shouldn't they be responsible for them?

I cannot help making a small parallel between this case and a news item I read a couple of days ago about an applicant for Canadian citizenship, Parminder Singh Saini, who in his youth hijacked an airplane, was convicted, served 10 years in jail, eventually gaining full pardon for his past actions. Thirteen years ago he claimed refugee status in Canada and was accepted. He apparently is a "model citizen" now, a lawyer about to pass his bar exam, by all accounts a person who could do a lot of good work in and for Canada. The problem is that he came here under an assumed name, hiding his past. If anyone asked my modest little person to pass judgment over him, I would say that he must be held responsible for the means he used in order to gain entry into Canada. He has to be rejected now, and advised that he should go back to India and apply under his real name. Past can be forgiven, people can redeem themselves by proving their present worth. But the old Jesuit motto, "goals justify the means by which they are attained", does not, should not hold anymore.

Where do I see any connection between his case and the Gore case, you ask? Mr Gore IS a model citizen, he does not have a spotty past in need of redemption. But political candidates must be also scrutinized for the means they use to get where they want to be!

Throne Speech reverb...

I heard an interesting comment by political analyst Tom Flanagan on CTV's Mike Duffy Live: "This is an unprecedented situation. Usually in a minority government, the opposition is trying to bring the government down, but here it's reversed. I think for the first time in Canadian history, we have a government which wouldn't mind being defeated, but it can't seem to get the opposition to come out against it."

Proof: after Stephane Dion assured the House of Commons that his party has no intentions to bring down the government, Harper went on to say that he would treat an upcoming justice bill as a confidence vote, and would accept no amendments.

Although the Liberals still have a few more days to make a final decision, it is more likely than not that they will pussyfoot their way out of a full confrontation. After all, Harper offered enough goodies to the public by promising tax cuts, increased funding for cities, more help for seniors, etc. that it would make anyone look bad if they tried to object to any of it. There are lots who think that the tax cuts, or even a reduction of the GST, is not exactly the best idea, but these are pure ear candy for the average citizen. And who could object to the grandiose statements of "strengthening Canada's sovereignty in the world, providing economic leadership", not to speak of "tackling crime"?

It is definitely interesting to watch the reactions of different party leaders, and we are still not sure which way the winds will blow in the long run. The crucial vote will take place next Wednesday. So it is yet to be seen whether we will have an election or not...

Throne Speech 2007 or The Fate of Harper and Dion

During a long drawn out illness in the family that kept me rather busy I did not have much time to follow up on our politicians. Only the most obvious blunders have reached my little pool of attention. Now, of course, I try to catch up on the events of the last half a year, and it seems that whatever caught my attention during that hermit stage, making me form opinions in one direction or another, were not that off. Both of our top political figures, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and opposition leader Stephane Dion, are somewhat less than "charismatic". At least that is the general opinion discovered by a recently conducted poll. The questions are:
- Is their image a result of their actions?
- Are their actions weightier than their image?
In our media-heavy times I am always weary of opinions based on image. Just think, wouldn't have Albert Einstein come across as a blundering idiot occasionally in today's strong limelight? But then again, he was an academe, not a politician. And therein lies, for example, Stephane Dion's main problem.

As a matter of fact, tomorrow will be a crucial day for these two men. For one, it is an opportunity to prove the country that Mr Harper and his team will be able to create a viable roadmap for the next few years ahead of us. Let us pay close attention to how comprehensive the Conservative stance is on federal issues, the issue of Canadian deployment in Afghanistan, the environmental clean-up issue and their plans for the country's economic development.

And then I will be watching with interest what the Liberal reaction will be. Will it be knee-jerk attacks, or thoughtful opinions with measured criticism and honest support where it is due?

As for the Bloc, I could more or less predict their position, unless they have some things of their own up their sleeves.

Canadian presence at the Tehran Holocaust conference

A month has passed from the time of the infamous Tehran conference on the Holocaust, or rather the denial thereof. Yet only now did I become aware of the shameful fact that there was a Canadian among the speakers there. His name is Shiraz Dossa. On their program they identified him as being a professor at the University of Toronto, while in fact he has been part of the staff at St. Francis Xavier University in Antagonish, Nova Scotia, since 1988 - as his webpage there states. He claimed during an interview that he "did not know" the planned conference would be antisemitic. Nooo...! Really?

Judged by his writings he subscribes to some rather interesting points of view. He certainly makes sure that noone will mistake him for a liberal thinker. He believes that multiculturalism is just "liberal posturing", he professes, alongside Peter Fitzpatrick, that "liberalism is bound by its genealogy and its sense of history to debase the culturally Other"... and so on and on. He chalks up every ill that befell the world, ills which were perpetrated by self-proclaimed liberals of the times, to their being liberals and not to the fact that they were fallible human beings despite their supposed liberalism, claiming that they did wrong because of their liberalism not in spite of it.

But whatever his views, he is a Canadian, and he is entitled to have his views. These rights are accorded to him by the Canadian Charter of Rights, a document which holds up a liberal ideal for us, an ideal that for now isn't/cannot possibly be adhered to in its fullest, but is to be strived for. A liberal ideal that gives us the hope that one day in the future Canadian society may actually fulfill its lofty proposals. Yes, in spite of his opinion about us, he is being tolerated. We do seem to tolerate the intolerant.

What bothers me, though, that his presence in Tehran was ignored by the Canadian media, that there was no public outcry, only a polite acknowledgement, that we were not made aware more widely and more forcefully of his shameful presence there. Granted, he did not travel there on Canadian taxpayers' money. He was luxuriously wined and dined on Iranian government funds. But we, Liberal Canadians, cannot pass it off with a shrug when someone like Dossa takes it upon himself to represent us at an event which singles out another cultural minority present in our Canadian society, questioning and ridiculing its painful past. This constitutes a silent endorsement!

As will be the university's position if Shiraz Dossa will still be on their staff next year...

------------------------------

While sifting through Iranian blogs that commented on the Holocaust conference, I found an entry by fellow Canadian blogger, Hoder, in which he expresses concern about the way Ahmadinejad seems to be "consolidating his power inside the system gradually, carefully and quite intelligently." This reminds me of an earlier entry of my own from way back in September, in which I made some semi-serious predictions about the directions Ahmadinejad's presidency may take if left unchecked...

Walid Salem, a Palestinian voice of reason

Today I discovered a remarkable Palestinian voice of reason in the ugly cacophony of animosity and violence. The article I found is Walid Salem's response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's viciously anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli position - Mahmoud Ahmadinijad: Questions of Strategy. In it he questions the wisdom of Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and their calls for the annihilation of Israel, he questions the general strategy of the Arab world towards Israel and the Palestinians, and he calls on moderate Arabs to raise their voices.

The article becomes even more remarkable when we consider that Walid Salem spent altogether five years in Israeli prisons and yet, instead of harbouring anger in his heart and seeking revenge, he realised that the road to peace is not via violence but by reaching out to the Israelis from the streets, to build peace from the base and not from above between political leaders only. He is the director of Panorama, an organization dedicated to spreading democracy in Palestinian society, promoting cooperation between groups from both sides that support peace.

Saddam Hussein is gone. What now?

Saddam Hussein is gone! Speculation is on whether this will translate into a worsening of violence in Iraq. Probably yes. At least temporarily so.

Iraq was literally squeezed in Hussein's fist for 35 years. As a child I experienced the Stalinist era in Eastern Europe. Parents were scared to speak openly in front of their children lest those utter questionable remarks somewhere in public inadvertently, which then would bring tragedy onto the heads of the parents. As a result those children (myself included) grew up completely under the influence of the political slogans of the time. When Stalin died, we children shed genuine tears, not knowing any better. Of course Russian politics quickly took care of Stalin's memory, opening up our eyes in the process, making us less susceptible for further hero worship.

In Iraq this process did not have a chance to occur "naturally". Saddam was toppled by foreign forces, forces which were painted in very unfavourable colours previously, forces that gained an even more negative image as time passed. Iraq has a very large segment of the population that isn't very well educated, at least not from the point of view of world politics. or maybe I should say: they have been very well educated by the Saddamist propaganda machine. They grew up on in an artifical political environment, in a virtual glass bowl. They tend to gravitate towards any center of power, at the same time fearing it while looking for its safety, entering voluntarily under its umbrella. It will probably take a whole generation to shed the effects of the Stalinist style Saddam era.

This new generation will have the task of sifting through all the data of the past, straightening out the facts, finding the truth and laying down the grounds for an open society. Can the Iraquis do it quickly? I hope so. Things are definitely changing at a rapid pace in the Middle East. Every day there are surprising little news items, things developing in directions that one would not have thought possible just days earlier. Mahmoud Abbas calling new elections, Syria expressing willingness to make peace with Israel. Even Libya seems to be changing, prompting the US to improve its relations with the Qadhafi regime.

A lot of credit must be given to the Al Jazeera network for impacting the flow of information in the Arab world. I have been watching them occasionally, and my impression is that they are trying very hard to be fair and impartial. Do they always succed? Of course not. But show me one media outlet that could claim to be truly successful from this point of view. It is an impossible task, even for such veterans as the BBC or CNN. News reporting is a very hectic business. News items are pouring in incessantly, and reports are always representative of the reporters personal views. Decisions must be made then by the news editors about the validity of these reports on the spot, again filtering these through their own prejudices. And then here WE are, sifting through all the information and trying to form our opinions.

The most important thing is that we have all these differing views available to us. Al Jazeera's English program, although not carried by any American network as yet, is available on the internet. It is interesting to note that one of the countries where Al Jazeera is carried by local cable is Israel, while dropping BBC World, which has been accused of anti-Israel/anti-American bias in the past. Could Al Jazeera be less biased than the BBC? The Israeli action seems to indicate that they think so there.

Warriors of Jesus

Last night I wrote about concerns I have regarding Iran's political-religious aspirations and the apocalyptic ideology behind it. By the funny quirks of synchronicity, nay, "by the grace of God", I was shown signs of some dangerous developments occurring right here in our own backyard.

As an odd coincidence, I had a chance today to watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" (see the ABC News report on it, and watch their news clip on video). If I was worried about the rise of Islamism, or about Muslim children being groomed to become warriors of Allah, now I am even more worried. Worried, because the indoctrination of American children does not only mean creating good soldiers for the US army. These children may one day become OUR enemy! Don't forget, they are taught: "You are either with God/us or against us."

One of the exercises at the camp is that each child is given a hammer and is allowed to smash a mug which has GOVERNMENT written across its side. It is a powerful and empowering exercise. These children will feel that it is their God given right to fight their own government, to bring it down and replace it with their own brand of governance: ban abortion, ban gays, ban the teaching of evolution in schools. We can't even fathom just yet what else will they ban and enforce if the movement is allowed to grow and gain power over the country.

Karl Rove spoke at the annual dinner pf Hillsdale College three days ago (on Dec. 4). Responding to a question he said, "Moderate Muslims are waiting for the outcome." Bernard Lewis is right, according to Rove, when he says, "The center of gravity will be determined by the outcome."

Now, I wonder how the moderates of this continent view the developments that threaten our own society? Will we also be sitting on our hands, waiting for the outcome? Or maybe we will be able to find a solution. Maybe by doing so we can act as examples for Muslim moderates, inspiring them how to deal with the problems in their own backyards.

Maybe...

Ignore Iran at your own peril!

The news and all the media stories are like ever changing cloud formations. If you lie on your back and your eyes are on the clouds, they barely seem to move. When you take your glance away and do not look for a while, the sky looks entirely different when you lift your face towards the sky again. A week or two of ailing made me notice trends in the news that I may have not seen if I followed it daily.

Our news media, just like the clouds in the sky, is an ever changing kaleidoscope of news items. Even the great disasters enter and fade out of our consciousness in a matter of days. Going beyond the surface of the stories is the job of documentary makers. But even they tend to choose the more visually fascinating topics, after all they are movies. So we have documentaries galore on 9/11, approaching it from different directions, some even subscribing to conspiracy theories, trying to prove that it was the American government itself that blew all those people to smithereens, just so they can go and have some fun in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Jokes aside, some topics get over-explored, others never catch anyone's fancy. One such largely ignored issue is Ahmadinejad's repeated public remarks regarding America, Israel, and generally the West. In his famous Open Letter to President Bush he claims ( = threatens) that Islam will replace democracy. People tend to laugh it off, considering him to be just an eccentric, half-educated small time teacher, who somehow ended up in his present position by mistake and porbably will not last long. I think this stance is wrong, we ought to monitor him more closely.

President Ahmadinajad did not get where he is by chance. He is the figure head of a larger organization, he was actually helped into the presidential seat. Therefor he is the mouthpiece of that organization, of their world view. Yet, in spite of the belligerent position of Iran, the media does not seem to be interested in that world view. Well, I am! That world view is shaped by religious fanaticism, a religious movement in Islam with apocalyptic tendencies. They fervently anticipate the arrival of the "Hidden Imam" who, they believe, will make the whole world accept Islam. For a while they even thought that the Ayatollah Khomeini might be the Promised One. In the above mentioned letter Ahmadinejad writes: "Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems." (bottom of the page). Doesn't that send shivers up your spine? It should!

If you look into this belief system you find some very interesting ( = alarming) ideas. One such idea is that one can bring the end of times, and the arrival of the Twelfth Imam (al-Muntazar), closer by creating cataclysmic events. Ahmadinejad seems to be among those who espoused this idea. So why do we brush it off? Why do world leader and the media not react to Ahmadinejad's remarks and threats?

There seem to be several factors. For one thing he manages to continually bullwinkle the West by insisting that Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear technology, and that it wants peace. At the same time he secures the (sometimes reluctant) support of the Arab world by constantly attacking (verbally, for the time being) the "Zionist entity", even promising its elimination. But the real problem for the Western media is the acceptance of the idea that it is actually the Muslim world that is the victim of bullying, the perpetrator being the agressor USA. Let's face it, we like to be on the side of the underdog ( = the strong is wrong and the weak is right).

Psychological warfare usually precedes the physical. Yet, with adequate response to such verbal sabre rattling one might be able to avert escalation of events. I believe that Ronald Reagan's courageous and articulate verbal war with the Soviet regime contributed greatly to the peaceful dissolution of communism. I believe that the world would be different today had world leaders stood up to Hitler's deceiving demagoguery instead of negotiating with him and making concessions to him. As today, the media then, too, "tried to be objective", instead of drawing world attention to the narcissistic mass hysteria of Nazism. Islamism is growing, and I have no intention here to discuss the growth of its influence in the Western world, I am only talking about countries like Syria, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia. If things go according to their plans, Hezbollah will overtake Lebanon soon. The number of Islamist regimes is growing step by step, just as European countries were gradually overtaken by fascist regimes, who then sided with Hitler and helped WWII come to happen. Shouldn't we at least pressure the present Iranian regime by increased media attention asking them to explain their stance, and then try to understand what is really behind the oddly disturbing statements?

New faces at the top in Canada and at the UN

Interesting developments while I was sick: a new general secretary at the UN, Ban Ki-Moon from South Korea, and a new Liberal leader here in Canada, Stéphane Dion.

The UN nomination and appointment was not a surprise. Mr Ban has a strong track record, and it is very important in the present political climate to have someone from the Far East at the helm. Particularly so in light of the situation regarding North Korea. Maybe Mr Ban will be able to help diffuse tensions and maybe even precipitate some changes.

As for Stéphane Dion, his victory came as a shocking surprise. Nobody thought much of the bookish little university professor from Quebec who used to be the environment minister in Paul Martin's government. Dion was fourth when he entered the leadership race, meaning that fewer than one in five members were supporting him. The bets were placed on the two main contenders, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. Then things started to go funny. He placed third in the first two ballots, but then Gerard Kennedy handed his supporters over to him after the second ballot, and Bob Rae dropped off after the third. This allowed Dion to leap ahead of Ignatieff in the fourth.

Stéphane Dion was sort of a "background noise" in the past: we heard his name occasionally but did not know much about him. Yet, he is not a stupid guy apparently. He has a BA and MA in political science from Laval University, and a doctorate from the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. He first entered politics by running in a 1996 byelection in the Quebec riding of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville. He won the seat and has held it for 10 years. Dion was minister for intergovernmental affairs for seven years under Jean Chretien, then environment minister in Paul Martin's government.

Can we picture him as Canada's next prime minister? Hmmm... He has a few things working against him. For one thing, he peaks English with a heavy French accent, and Canadians are a bit tired after all those funny jokes regarding Chretien and his accent. Then, there are those scandals, those favoured French businesses from Quebec during Chretien's reign. Lots of people in the predominantly English-speaking areas of Canada are eyeing him with a certain amount of skeptic caution. French Quebec separatists also dislike him because of his efforts to make it harder for them to hold a successful referendum on whether Quebec should break away from the rest of Canada. A definite positive point (for us, staunch supporters of a united Canada) is that he seems to be a strong federalist.

All in all, the eyes of the country are focused on him right now. He has a lot of work waiting for him, - il doit faire une chose ou deux à ne gagner notre coeurs.

Teach Kids Peace!

I would like to revisit one of my earlier topics, the one that deals with the indoctrination of children. Having grown up under communist rule, hence experiencing all manner of (attempts :) of indoctrination, I find this phenomenon particularly disturbing. Yet, the Middle East cannot expect to achieve peace as long as they raise their children by teaching them hatred towards their neighbours, or by drilling them to become Martyrs of God.

I am eager to support any attempt at fighting this practice. Today I was very happy to discover a site that is trying to make an actual step in the right direction: Teach Kids Peace!

Please, make sure you visit their site, and join their efforts if you can!

Hungary: Communism vs Fascism??

The situation in Eastern Europe is a tricky one. They do not have time honoured political traditions, only vague memories thereof in some countries, not even that in others. The process of transition seems to be painful in all the former Eastern Bloc countries. Right now Hungary is the most turbulent. The unfortunate side of this turbulence is that a well-meaning, or maybe intentionally s*#t-stirring, person leaked a very short quote from a long speech of the prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, a speech that was meant to be kept behind closed doors, to be heard only by the prime minister's cabinet.

The present leadership is basically a left wing party that came to power some two years ago, promising a lot of liberal measures, improvements in all areas of life. Isn't that what the population is expecting now that they joined the United Europe? The problem is that when communism collapsed in these countries they were literally bancrupt. Any government that is elected there has two choices: either they keep some or all of their electoral promises and get the country into a deeper and deeper finaincial quagmire, or they apply temporary austerity measures until the country's financial standing improves and they are truly able to afford social improvements.

But to return to the present situation in Hungary let's see what happened there at the end of September. The leaked speech was made sometime in the summer, after a long session of discussions, plan proposals, etc., In his speech Gyurcsany decided to face his colleagues with an impassioned message saying: "Look guys, in the first two years of our power we basically lied to the people, lying to them day and night, leading them by the nose, promising them heaven with all its stars. We know it is impossible to go on like this. We have to get our act together, tighten the purse strings, do things right." So on and so on. The speech was about 20 minutes long. The quote that hit the media was this short section: "...we basically lied to the people, lying to them day and night, leading them by the nose...", end of quote! So what could all decent people do? They got upset, some of them taking to the street, demanding the immediate dissolution of the government and new elections. Unfortunately, as things often happen in such situations, things snowballed, unsavoury elements joined the demonstrations, causing all kinds of material damage, basically trying to create a good imitation of a popular uprising, a revolution. Except that such a thing is totally unwarranted in this instance.

The blame first of all lies with the person who fed the media the unfairly trunkated quote. We are all familiar with the power of first impressions in the media. People form an initial opinion and after that, no matter how many discussions take place with proper clarifications, dissections of the issue, most people will feel reluctant to rethink their original gut reaction and change their position. Not to speak of those who do not have the time or the educational wherewithal to really understand the whole issue.

Being very aware of this, the Hungarian opposition gleefully uses the opportunity to try and topple the government, hoping that they then can have a clean grab at the seats of power. Hungary's right has a charismatic populist leader in Viktor Orban. Good speaker, who can play the heartstrings of the simple people, who promises great reforms, prosperity. As the original street protests unfolded, he rose to the occasion, organized the proceedings, and as a result the almost daily demonstrations continue to this day, with the police force applying sometimes too little, sometimes too much force to keep the crowd under control, resulting in even more outrage from the part of the demonstrators.

So what would be a good solution? The government, including the acting opposition and all the other parties, acted according to the prevailing laws, and after assessing the situation they called for a vote of confidence> As a result, Gyurcsany was reinforced in his position. No new elections called, a move that the European community acknowledged with a sigh of relief. Why? Because constant elections and re-elections do not do a country any good. Let's just think of the case of Italy where changes of government have been so common in the last half a century that by now they are a yawn. But for them it is OK, the country goes about their business no matter what. It is another matter in these new democracies where institutions are not supported by a long history of routine procedures. In these countries people are inordinately suspicious of politicians, the average voter has no good methods yet of weighing the true merits of all the different parties, let alone the individual candidates (not as if the situation was so much better in the West). Hungary is not alone in the area as far as political problems are concerned. They have all kinds of problems in several of the neighbouring countries. In Poland they bent to the will of the people, they held new elections, which resulted in a wobbly coalition government that doesn't have the power to do nearly anything because of all the bickering. In the Czech Republic they also went ahead with new elections. The result: no government to speak of for months now.

Let us have a look at the possibilty of new elections in Hungary. The present ruling party and Gyurcsany, representing The Left, are in a way the heirs of the communist party of old. In spite of winning at the last election (because of those infamous promises) they have been eyed by the populace with a certain degree of suspicion from the start. Gyurcsany himself is under scrutiny for having become a wealthy man in a relatively short time, even though, as they say, "he has a communist past". This last remark, though, always makes me smile. Why? Well! He is fortyish. Communism fell 17 years ago. Do they accuse him for being a member of the communist youth organization? Who wasn't? Anyone who wanted to become a somebody, to have a good chance to get into university, had to be a member. That was the case all over in the Eastern Bloc countries, that is the case still today in Cuba, Dominican Republic, or any other country still under communist rule. I used to be a member! Does that mean that I was a communist? Are you kidding? Communism would not have toppled so easily if all those "party members" were actual communists. Plus, this party in Hungary absorbed the more moderate left wing Liberal movement, also.

Viktor Orban, as the other major contender in an eventual election, is not exactly the most savoury character a decent voter could vote for in good conscience. He is the representative of The Right, with its own baggage of irredentist historic idealogy. Not that there could be a danger of any ontoward action from the part of such a government within the European community, but even insensitive remarks can potentially cause problems.

So what would happen as a result of a new election? They could reelect Gyurcsany, whose government now has admitted to the planned austerity measures, like having to pay for medical services, drugs, university. On the other hand, the Right, if elected and then really sticking to their promises to the electorate, would just create a vicious cycle by further increasing the deficit.

There has been a tendency, specially so in the last week, to compare the events of today to the revolution in 1956. It is happening in the media, because it is a convenient parallel to draw while commemorating the 50th anniversary of that event. In the streets, people see it as an extension of the symbolism of those times. Yet, whatever is happening in that country right now is not a revolution, no matter how some people there would like us, and themselves, to believe that. The role of a revolution is to change the entire political system. The present system itself in Hungary is not in need to be changed, even the demosntrators in the streets would agree to that. Unfortunately those in the street do not realize that there are now other ways and places where situations like this can and should be resolved. Definitely not by confrontations with the police which is out there simply to restore order, to make sure that life is not upset in the capital to the point of an economic paralysis. Yet, the political right does not seem to be willing to give up this "street show" that seems to play so nicely into their court. Could they win in the end? Who knows... But it certainly would not be in interest of the country right now.

Hamas-Fatah standoff

Something is brewing in the Palestinian territories. For months we have been witnessing confrontations between the old guard, Fatah, and the acting Hamas government. What we see is just the top layer. There are major differences between the two movements. From here afar it is hard to tell them apart, yet for a long time analysts were talking about even a possible civil war between them.

President Mahmoud Abbas was in Jordan for the past week, trying to call an emergency meeting of the Fatah central committee, the goal of which would have been to find a solution for the standoff between Fatah and Hamas. Unfortunately news leaked somehow from Washingtom that the US allegedly pledged 42 million dollars for opponents of the Hamas regime. The timing made the meeting by Fatah suspect. They were technically forced to give up on it and return home. Whether the committee will have another go at it is to be seen. With or without the meeting, there are two options for Abbas: call an early election, or simply dissolve the government and form a temporary one until the next election.

Naturally, Hamas and their followers have been incensed by the leak. If Abbas makes the expected move and removes them from power, that would make them return to terrorism. This time, though, they would not only target Israel but American interests in the region, also. Jihadist tones are taking over in public speeches, in the mosques, in the streets. The Hamas movement has the following options: hit back and fight Fatah, which could mean civil war, or turn their anger against Israel and the West, in particular against the US.

Video tapes of 9/11 terrorists

A week ago UK's Sunday Times released five video tapes, altogether lasting about an hour, that were made at Al Qaeda headquarters. The most important aspect of these tapes is that one of them shows Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah, two of the 9/11 highjackers together in Afghanistan, and at one point apparently reading their martyrdom messages. The problem is that the tapes are silent and lip readers were unsuccessful to dicipher yet what was being said on them. But the two terrorists' mere presence is a chilling proof of their Al Qaeda connections.

Ahmadinejad’s absurd theory on the Jewish presence in Israel

Here is an article written by Bertrand Ramas-Muhlbach that uses a somewhat twisted tongue-in-cheek logic at the end but one that is definitely thought provoking. :)

-------------------

Ahmadinejad’s absurd theory on the Jewish presence in Israel
By Bertrand Ramas-Muhlbach

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to increase his comments about the illegitimacy of the State of Israel and the invention of the Holocaust as the reason for the pillage of Muslim territory. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presentation demonstrates perfect sophism, (I) but the Iranian president ought perhaps to mistrust his own logic because, taken at face value, it could justify an eviction (actually impossible) of the totality of the non Jewish population presently settled in Israel (II).

I ) The classic theme developed by fundamentalist Islamists is that of the need to rid itself of the Jewish “enclave implanted” on Muslim territory.

Thus, at the conference held in Teheran on October 26th, 2005, on the subject « A world rid of Zionism », Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called « wise » the proposal by Imam Khomeini who said (speaking of Israel) that « the regime of occupation should be wiped off the map».

To demonstrate the illegitimacy of the Jewish presence in Palestine, the Iranian president postulates that the arrival of the Jews to Palestine is based on a « lie » about an « imaginary massacre” of the Jews perpetrated during World War II.

This argument was repeated in his speech in November 2005 on the margin of the Summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OCI) in Mecca when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reaffirmed that the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis was a « legend ».

This declaration naturally earned him a condemnation from the United Nations Security Council.

Notwithstanding, the thesis was further developed on December 14th 2005 in Zahedan when he said that «The Westerners have invented the myth of the massacre of the Jews and are placing it above God, religions and prophets. ».

With this address, the Iranian president demonstrated his talents as a perfect orator.

To begin with, he subtly positioned his theory on religious grounds by alleging that the Western infidels had placed the lie above their highest transcendental values:

« If someone in their country insults God, no one says anything to him ; but if someone denies the myth massacre of the Jews, the Zionist spokespeople and the governments on the Zionist payroll begin to vociferate».

In doing so he comforts his audience, acquired from Islam, because in Western society, which he judges to be decadent and dehumanized, it is possible to doubt the existence of God but not the « lie of the Zionists about the massacre of the Jews from 1939-1945 “.

Furthermore, the sequence of the concepts predicated demonstrates not only that the Jews are "liars and traitors", but also begs the question « why the Palestinians have to pay the price for the imaginary massacre of the Jews »:

«If you say that you have massacred and burned six million Jews during World War II, if you have really committed this massacre, why is it the Palestinians who have to pay the price? Why create a false Zionist government ?».

The Iranian president can then make proposals about an acceptable settlement of Jews in another part of the world.

«Our proposal is the following: give them a piece of your land in Europe, in the United States, Canada or Alaska so that the Jews can create their state. And be sure that is you do this, the Iranian people will no longer protest against you and will support your decision», (declaration made on 14/12/2005)

These statements became a lament of Holocaust denial in February 2006 in the Karlsruhe federal park (punishable in Germany with 5 years imprisonment) and since then, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not stopped outdoing himself.

Thus, at the time of the war fought by Israel against Hezbollah in July 2006, he compared Israel to Nazi Germany : "Their methods are like those of Hitler. When Hitler wanted to launch an attack, he also invented an excuse» before concluding: «the Zionists say they were Hitler’s victims, but they are of the same nature as him».

And it is once again this intellectual construction (in ever more subtle nuances) which was again picked up by the Iranian president at the UN General Assembly on September 19, 2006, when he said once again that :
- Palestine was conquered with the pretext of sheltering part of the survivors of World War II,
- Afterwards, many people who had not been affected by the war were taken to Palestine (the Zionists)
- this occupation of Palestine is a tragedy that constitutes a threat to the Middle East
- and that this tragedy has not been solved by the creation of a regime on land that belongs to others.

The Iranian president, brilliant orator, nevertheless naively asked the UN General Assembly «why the Holocaust is used by the Jews as a justification for the occupation of Palestine ».

This evidences a lack of sophistry, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ought to mistrust the principle according to which an illegitimate conqueror must leave the land it has taken.

In fact, this principle could justify a departure from Israel for all the non-Jewish population there, since they are the descendants of foreign invaders.

II ) THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ILLEGITIMATE FOREIGN CONQUEROR

For Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the reasoning is simple, the Jews are only occupiers without title, who came to steal the land of the Palestinians who must, because of their states as conquerors, return towards another part of the word that the international community would choose for them.

The statements of the Iranian president have naturally sparked off anxiety, stupefaction, indignation and disgust, but it might be of interest to pay attention to the arguments he uses.

If, in fact, the Iranian president were right, this would mean that a population, by the mere fact of its conquering status (or as descendants of conquerors) should leave the country upon which it has established itself.

The solution could be, finally found for Israel and for the Palestinian problem in the measure that the populations of Palestinian origin that remain in Israel or, more broadly, in the Middle East, should immediately leave their places of residence due to their situation as «descendants of foreign invaders ».

First of all, the name of « Palestinians » which the Palestinians give themselves, justifies their eviction because it was given to the region by the Roman Emperor (and invader) Hadrian in 135 of the Common Era.

If the Palestinians recognize themselves through the name of this Roman invader, they are perhaps direct descendants.

If such should be the case, and following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s logic, surely it would make sense to send the parties to Italy.

Their origin may, however, be more recent.

If they are the descendants of the Arab invaders who, after taking Damascus in 635, saw themselves took over Syria and Palestine in 636, it would make more sense to send them to Saudi Arabia.

It is also possible that the Palestinians are the descendants of Crusaders who in 1099 came to establish the Latin Kingdom in Jerusalem in 1100. In that case, the conditions of their return are slightly complicated in so far as, before their departure, one would have to study their genealogy in order to get to know the probable European provenance of their ancestors.

In so far as they are « Palestinians » whose ancestors trace their origins to 1516, date of the dominion of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey could well be their next destination.

Finally, for those Palestinians who settled during the time of the British Mandate, a return to the United Kingdom could be highly recommended.

Will there be any cases of Palestinians for whom one cannot find the origin of « conquering invaders » implying that their ancestors were really born in this part of the world?

For these last, the solution is to be found thanks to the thesis of Tsvi Misinai who, in his work « Incredible but True », has highlighted that a section of the Palestinians come from the Jewish people, descendants of the Hebrew tribes and the Moabites and Edomites converted to Judaism by King David before being converted by force to Islam.

For these last, and taking into account their Jewish origins before their forced conversion to Islam, it would be possible to envision a conversion to Judaism which would constitute not a geographic return, but a veritable “teshuva”, that is, a spiritual return.

Thanks to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Palestinian problem would be finally solved because in this part of the world, there would only remain descendants of 2,000 year old Jewish populations which would have remained on this territory.

These last could, with the authorization of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, invite the members of their families dispersed throughout the world for the past 2,000 years to join them and the Iranian president would never again be considered a menace to Israel but rather as one of the greatest Zionists of all times, earning eternal recognition from the Jewish people who had never imagined such an opportunity.

We are not there yet, but, while we wait, let us admit that by wanting to erase Israel from the map, the Iranian president joins the ranks of those rare Arab heads of state who recognize that Israel is fine on the world map.

---------------------

It is an interesting idea but at the same time a totally impossible one, since by Islamic law one is not allowed to convert AWAY from Islam. If you do so, you are an open target for anyone to eliminate you. Which then again would allow all Muslims to go after all those "returning Jews"...

Putin's attempt to intimidate Georgia

Interesting developments in a spy story!

Tensions developed between Russia and Georgia when four Russian soldiers were arrested for allegedly spying on the Georgian military. Russia's reaction was swift and draconian. They recalled the ambassador from Tbilisi. This was followed by an economical embargo on Georgia, and even military action was hinted at. Georgian owned restaurants, a casino and entertainment complex in Moscow were shut down, claiming that the owners were "criminal bosses". Residents in some parts of Moscow were ordered to report to the police. Even the Georgian cultural centre was searched.

Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili was quick to respond with conciliatory words, even releasing the soldiers on Monday. Yet the anti-Georgian campaign continues. Russian parliament is considering limiting bank transfers to Georgia, people with double citizenship may not work in state service any more, and Georgian children will not be allowed any more in schools set up for and by the Russian military in Georgia.

Is there something more behind the tensions than just the "spies"? Or it is just a scapegoating reaction to an act viewed as public humiliation, since Saakashvili turned to the West diplomatically instead of towards Moscow. Russia's reactions are disproportionately insane, though, and it would be appropriate for the other G-8 coutries to let them know so!

Islamic intimidation

On September 19, 2006, a French professor of philosophy, Robert Redeker, wrote an article about the growing number of threats and violence perpetrated by Muslims in France and all over Europe. The title of the article is: "In the face of Islamic intimidations, what should the free world do?" In it he accused Islam of “exalting violence.” The response was the kind of response that we are starting to get used to: "How dare anyone accuse Islam of being violent? Off with their heads!"

Although a good topic for a cartoon, this is no laughing matter. Robert Redeker has a fatwa on his head, he has received death threats, is now in hiding, under constant police protection. The chief editor of Le Figaro had to appear on Al Jazeera, publicly apologizing for the article, just to save his own head. And all this because of a newspaper article written by a Frenchman is his own country, now hunted in his own country...

And Muslim outrage goes on! Do you remember the Pope's speech at the University of Regensburg, with the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manual II Paleologus? He also caved in to the Islamists and made an apology... well, sort of... It was not enough. An elderly Catholic nun, Sister Leonella Sgorbati, helping the poor in Mogadishu, was murdered in response to the war cries that gushed forth from the Muslim media.

The Chavez-Ahmadinejad affair

Since the incident with Khrushchev and the shoe, I haven't seen such an amuzing scene at the UN like the one with Chavez yesterday, when he crossed himself (I thought he was an atheist Communist) and complained of smelling sulfur.

My god, is he ever a comedian...! Certainly not statesmanlike behaviour! I am thankful right now that I am not a Venezuelan. I can sympathise with the embarrassment of most of the intellectuals there that they surely must feel now.

And the company that he keeps...! Not that they do not match. I saw Ahmadinejad's interview also, with Anderson from CNN. He wasn't too bad at the UN, he did not fulfill the fears of Jafarzadeh, but he made up for it during the interview. I am sad to say but he came across as a rather uneducated person. Ahmadinejad may be the proud owner of a civil engineering diploma but he certainly is lacking in other areas. Because of my age and European background I see certain things in him that I find quite alarming, so I feel compelled to share those thoughts here.

We know that his coming to power was not exactly "kosher", that is - it was greatly influenced by the gentle persuasive powers of the Basijs. Now he starts to show signs of a growing sense of supreme omnipotence. He is educationally speaking "half-baked", AND he is short! Does that remind you of somebody from the past? They even share the overwhelming hatred for Jews. Of course, just like his historic counterpart, he starts to enjoy a growing popularity among simple people, who see in him the shining knight who is ready to turn Iran into a nuclear "superpower", and who is able and willing to stand up, and even talk threateningly, against the great political giant, the USA. As an individual he seems to be obsessed by success, is arrogant, agressive, with a ruthlessly strong will.

If left to go ahead unchecked, I predict that soon there will be heads rolling in Iran, those of his previous supporters and allies, who now will have to be eliminated so he will not feel the burden of owing them so much. Then he will step up the militarization of Iran, will support with all means possible the inner strife in Iraq, until all foreigners will be forced out, after which we can expect a friendly Shia "Anschluss" between the two countries. Once that is done, the Middle East is his! (Please, see also my August 29 entry), "Iran prepares its school children to fight the West",.

*** I have another pet theory about Ahmadinejad. He is doing everything so "fly-in-your-face" wrong, and hence playing so openly into the hands of the US, that I sometimes get the odd feeling that he is actually a CIA agent who is instructed to do everything possible to make a Western invasion of Iran look legit.... or so it seems. :)

The passing of Naguib Mahfouz (August 30, 2006)

Naguib Mahfouz (1911 - 2006) was considered the greatest Egyptian intellect of our times. Nobel prize laurate, writer, long time civil servant, he was one of the few Egyptians who dared stand up in support of Anwar Sadat's peace treaty with Israel.


He gained a lot of enemies for his stance, as well as his ideals. His novel Children of Gebelawi (1959) was considered blasphemous enough to be banned in most of the Arab world and, altough there was no murderous fatwah ever declared agains him, in 1994 Islamic extremists attacked Mahfouz, stabbed him in the neck, severely damaging the nerves to his right hand. At the beginning of this year the book has finally been published in Egypt, too.

Yes, we all mourn his death. He was a great storyteller, a great painter of the human condition. (If you are interested in 20th Century Egypt you should read his Cairo Trilogy, a most entertaining saga.) Yet I have also read some comments which imply that his death means a point of no return, the downfall of an ideal. I don't think so! His life and work left glowing embers behind. Those sparks will inevitably find their way into the hearts and minds of present and future intellectuals, fertile ground for ideas of peace, cooperation, a pursuit of mankind's common goals.

It is our duty, yours and mine, too, to keep those embers alive, nesting them in our palms, to blow on them every once in a while and let a small shower of sparks find new homes...