Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Shameless Self-Promotion | Main | More on Israel's enemies »

Monday, July 24, 2006

Rally for Israel in Toronto


A rally to support Israel will be held in Toronto this coming Wednesday, 26th of July, at 7:30 pm in Toronto Center for the Arts which is located @ 5040 Yonge Street.

Please come to this gathering to support the state of Israel in its new round of war against forces of evil and darkness.

The Spirit of Man

Posted by Winston on July 24, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rally for Israel in Toronto:


Wish I wasn't half a continent away. Give us a report, won't you, Winston?

Posted by: EBD | 2006-07-24 2:39:18 AM

The responce of Israel to its missile shooting neighbors is totally within the realm of reason and understanding. But as they bomb their enemies back into the cave, the removal of their entire infrastructure will reduce them to hunters and gatherers. At a tribal level, they will live for revenge. The only place that can provide things for them to hunt and gather will be in Isreal. After the satisfaction of revenge has been achieved, Israel may find itself fighting a worse monster than it currently faces. I'm no expert and I'm hardly about to suggest what should be done, but another course of action must be considered before there is nothing left with no where to go. Desperate people will do horrible things. At a time where there seems to be no moral high ground on either side, this is the time for Israel to take that position. It seems quite evident that the current way isn't working.

Posted by: F. Merino | 2006-07-24 7:20:39 AM

Holding a pro-Israel rally in Toronto could be extremely dangerous. The city is renowned for its support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, the rampant anti-Semitism is fuelled by both old and new bigotry from old Toronto WASPs and young students from the Univ of Toronto and York U, and worst of all the city is in the midst of a major gun crime crisis that the city gov't refuses to handle (probably a goood thing becuase they're totally incapable of doing anything about it.)

I know I won't be attending. Maybe they should hold one in Calgary where the people appreciate freedom.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-07-24 7:53:31 AM

Great idea. I wonder if CBC will have a reporter.

I hope people will get together and organize one in Montréal and Vancouver.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-07-24 8:03:37 AM

Sure wish a ralley would be held in my town. My wife and I would be proud to attend. While "Lake country" out here is small we do know the differences between democracy and terrorism

Posted by: melwilde | 2006-07-24 10:01:50 AM

I am not Jewish but am pro-Isreal and I believe we should have a proIsreal rally in all major cities in Canada. I support the PM's stance on Isreal.

Posted by: Marianne DeVille | 2006-07-24 10:59:33 AM

Let's hope that Israel can crush these fascists by themselves, because if they can't then the whole middle east may succumb to fascist rule from Tehran - and that would be very bad for us here in North America in terms of terrorist attacks.

Israel is one small country with one big job ahead of it.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-07-24 11:47:48 AM

Everyone who lives in Dar al-Harb (the realm of war, where iSLAM doesn't rule) and appreciates it, NEEDS to support Israel. Otherwise, if Canada is insufficiently iSLAMic for them, they should immediately be convinced to take up permanent residence in any of the world's 53 iSLAMic nations.

Move there and knock yourself out, er, I mean, behead thyself!

Posted by: wharold | 2006-07-24 11:53:39 AM

See you there, Sweetcheeks.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2006-07-24 12:20:36 PM

Anyone have a list of the towns and citys where pro Israel demonstrations are being held?

Posted by: FuturePM | 2006-07-24 12:50:14 PM

I have been following CBC coverage of the middle east crisis. Just today, there has been an announcement of US AID for Lebanese.

OK, so what have we missed here?

Well, we hear everything about Lebanon, but very little about Israel. According to "Honest Reporting", the following is the actual situation in Israel:

"Here in Israel, we've now entered our 13th day of this war. And contrary to most media reports, we are fighting on 3 fronts - a huge demand on a small country's army.

The entire North is being bombarded by over 150 missiles on average every day. 1 million people are still confined to their shelters and secure rooms or have been dislocated from their homes and jobs.

The South continues to sustain daily missile attacks. And the level of suicide bombing and terror attempts has increased dramatically in the rest of the country. Everyone is on edge and wondering how long we can bear this pressure.

The 4th front is you and us. As time goes on, Israel will experience more and more international pressure to give up on its efforts to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas' armed threat."

according to latest developments:

"Some 17 people were wounded Saturday, two of them seriously, as waves of Katyusha strikes - more than 160 rockets - struck targets across the north of Israel.

Ten rockets land in Haifa Sunday morning, killing two people and wounding several others. Two children hurt in Katyusha rocket strike on Carmiel Sunday morning; more rockets fired at the Upper Galilee, Acre, Tiberias and Kiryat Shmona during Sunday.

Some 37 Israelis have been killed (including soldiers) since the beginning of fighting in the north.

Hospitals in Israel have treated 1,293 people who were injured in rocket attacks since the fighting on the country's northern border began 12 days ago. 19 people are still hospitalized across the country in serious condition. Another 37 people sustained moderate wounds and 325 were lightly injured. The number of people who suffered from shock stands at 875."

There have been over 20,000 missiles fired into Israel, since the start of this war, 13 days ago, with about 160 per day fired from Lebanese positions alone.

It is clear that Israel is the nation defending herself against these terrorists. And, from as it appears, without any international aid whatsoever!

Meanwhile, Israel has opened corridors for AID to Lebanon, and Gaza. And yet who is sending AID to the Israelis?

I have seen monies being cut off from the terrorists, but only calls and accusations of crimes against humanity against Israel.

Who can say they are for peace, if they expect a little country like Israel, to be massacred by terrorists?

While Israeli children and people, are becoming homeless, and terrorists attack Israel from urban areas, Israel has been landed with the horrible position, that if these urban located terror groups and their extremely powerful missile launchers are not destroyed, that innocent lives in every single major city will be as sitting ducks.

And we see AID to those who harboured terrorists, but nothing for Israel. If you read this, and believe that Israel has the right to defend herself, then I hope you will find it possible, to spare some of your hard earned dollars, to help the victims of terrorists and terrorism in Israel.

And while people flee Lebanon, people are going to Israel, to defend her.

If you cannot be there in person, please help in whatever way you can!

Hold a garage sale.

Have an Israel benefit BBQ.

Cash in that penny pile!

Collect on those bottles or cans, from beer parties.

Have a dinner party!

Make a special collection with your congregation!

Invest in Israel!

Do what you can!

Israel needs our moral support, and our backing, more now than ever before.

And let CBC and our government know, that Israel needs AID.

We simply cannot stand back and do nothing.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-24 1:08:45 PM

Yes, if I make it to the rally I will take pictures and make a report on my weblog.

Posted by: Winston | 2006-07-24 1:34:48 PM

Further to Lady's comments, may I suggest that those who support Israel against our enemies and who are unable to attend a rally contact our P.M. along with their local M.P. to thank our government for its stand.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-07-24 4:22:16 PM

This is definitely us against them. Democratic State of Isreal aginst a bastard terrorist group funded by Iran and syria. If anyone in this Country Canada has sympathy with the terrorists they do not belong in our midst. We should give aid to the Israelis, they do not harbour terrorists, nor do they have them in their government. Lebanon is less clear, they have Hezbollah in their government, we can't be sure who or what we are sending aid to. It is the responsibility of the Syrian and Iranian governments to rebuild that which they funded to destroy. People , please , smarten up, leave the left to sympathize with the terrorists as they are wont to do, the mindless can't be reasoned with.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-07-24 4:44:03 PM

I will be at the Toronto rally, along with some others. Pre-rally dinner at Dunn's, anyone?


Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-07-24 5:01:31 PM

"At a time where there seems to be no moral high ground on either side, this is the time for Israel to take that position. It seems quite evident that the current way isn't working." -- F. Merino

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that the people on the receiving end of nail bombs detonated by insane Muslims in restaurants, and missiles fired from occupied apartment buildings and schooltops by savages who want nothing less than to kill every single Jew, kind of have the moral high ground.

Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch | 2006-07-24 5:39:44 PM

RemiHoule: The CBC will have a reporter,it's another story to spin , another chance to skew the facts and manipulate opinion. Let's hope for one in Montreal as well. Toronto could be problematic but will be a field day for the media to be sure.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-07-24 7:44:01 PM

Aid for Lebanon? Do they need it to attack another country? isn't attacking one country enough!

Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-07-24 8:35:26 PM

Whoa now Phil:

Lebanon did not attacking Israel ... the Iranian proxy army Hezbollah attacked Israel.

It would be sweet if Lebanon asked Israel for help to enforce UN resolution 1559, which called for Lebanon to expel Hezbollah from its borders.

Don't expect the European bluehats to solve this one.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-07-24 11:47:02 PM

Rally in NYC had Hillary Clinton and others present.

Rally in Los Angeles had the Hispanic LA mayor and Governor Arnold leading it.

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-07-25 5:54:30 AM

Anyone who thinks that Israel won't have support in Toronto obviously hasn't been here. "The Walk With Israel" march happens every year, there are ads for Israel Bonds on the radio and on huge billboards. There is a sizable Jewish population of many stripes here - Ultra Orthodox, Russian Jews, European Ashkanasi (sp), North African Saphartics, etc.

I'm a fence-sitter when it comes to this situation (i.e. I don't see it as black and white, right and wrong). It is morally and criminally wrong to lob rockets into northern Israel (ironically Haifa, a multi-ethnic city of Arabs and Jews), as was the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. I also think Israel is in a catch-22 with how it responds (damned if you if you do, damned if you don't respond with some force).

However, I'm also opposed to their expansions in the West Bank and their ongoing treatment of the Palestinians. I absolutely oppose any sort of aggression on Israel proper (as we are seeing now from Hezbollah, and previously from Hamas). I would not shed a tear for rockets raining down on the Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Is that unfair??

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 9:31:23 AM


You "would not shed a tear for rockets raining down on Jewish settlers in the West bank"!

That is sick.

Thems fighting words.

And rockets have been raining down on the west bank. Israel happens to be fighting a war on three fronts. And the last front, is your ignorant mind.

I suppose that given you ability to proclude your mind from normal thinking, that if rockets rained down on Halifax, that would be wrong, and if rockets rained down on Montreal, that would be wrong, but if they rained down on the supporters of whom you refer to as settlers, that would be OK to you?

Well, I support the right of Jews to live in any location that is part of the lands of Israel. I also see no problem with Jews living in any part of the world, should they so choose. However the most discriminating laws in the world, those that exist in the Arab nations, specifically do not permit that Jews or Israelis, to own any lands, or have any rights, or even be permitted entry into their nations. Ironic, that while Lybia states that Arab Jews who were kicked out can claim their properties back, that they can only do so, if they go to Lybia and make their claim in person. And yet, due to the fact that Lybia does not permit Israelis entry, and that most Arab Jews who fled lybia, went to Israel, the offer is as empty as your ignorant war words.

Yassir Arafat married a Christian named Suha. He apparently married her, because she was blond. And they did not get along, because she was not accepted in the palestinian arab communities, because she worshipped a settler. Bet you did not know, that they refer to all Jews, from the beginning of the record of the Jews, as settlers, did you?

You are soft on terror. Thing is, terror will never be soft on you or anyone, no matter how much they believe that appeasing terrorism and terrorists, is the Liberal way to be! In my books, your position means the end of civilization.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-25 10:42:43 AM

Lady, thanks for taking the time to respond. Really.

I am talking about the Johnny-come-lately / right of return to Israel Jews who live in the occupied West Bank. This may be a little complex for you to comprehend but I view suicide bombers and land grabbing Jewish settlers (in the friggin' OCCUPIED TERRITORIES!!!) as "bad guys" and "bad guys".

Most of what I know about Israel is from actual Israelis who have moved to Canada from "Israel proper" (the land defined pre-1967). They wish nothing but to live in peace and see the settlers in the Occupied Territories as nothing but trouble to them.

You obviously have taken your position from the right-wingnuts of the US, some of whose policies have been adopted by the Conservative Party in Canada.

As with my Israeli friends, I support a secure, strong Israel (with weapons, a wall, and WORLDWIDE support - not just from a nation that is the most hated on Earth right now). You neo-cons may mock the Europeans but Israelis would actually love to have their support because culturally they relate to Europe much more they do Americans.

Soft on terror?? Hardly - I support Israel's right to attack ANYONE who has come and visited violence on their land (note: the West Bank is not their land). I supported the Americans going after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

I don't support projects that I believe create terror - like invading Iraq and destabilizing the country with tens of thousands dying. Or the Israelis building upon occupied land with no intent of giving it back. You speak so ignorantly - you make it sound like the Jews who live in the West Bank can live "anywhere they want". It seems to be OK to you that a Jew from North York can move there but a Palestinian from 10 km away can't. To use your analogy: a Christian from Australia can move to Halifax but a Buddhist from Dartmouth can't.

Did I say that rockets raining down on "supporters of settlers" was OK?? Didn't think so. Rockets raining down on ACTUAL settlers in the West Bank = OK. Rockets raining down on ACTUAL Hezbollah or Hamas guerillas = OK. Rockets raining down on US troops in Iraq = OK. Rockets raining down on insurgents in Iraq = OK. Bad guys = Bad guys.

My logic must really mess you up because it isn't one-dimensional thinking like yours. My idea of bad guys isn't just what some neo-con politician or publication tells me it is. I think with my own brain. You should try it - it's great!!

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 1:03:53 PM


Are you aware of Saddam's death count? That he was killing lots of civilians in Iraq without the war?

Are you aware that Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers 25k USD for killing Jews (anywhere, not just the "occupied territories?")

Are you aware that most of the civilians killed in Iraq were killed by terrorists and not the US military?

You may disagree with the US invasion of Iraq. Lots of people do. But not to get the fact that the US is getting its people killed trying to create a free society out of a tyranny is weak. Again, disagree with the aim. You may think that the rest of the world has no place saving anyone and letting them vote. Fine. We don't have to save anyone. We can rap up the peacekeeping while we're at it. No point in forcing our opinions on the locals after all. But there is a moral difference between whacking a dictator and terrorist attacks.

Are you aware that most people think the deliberate targeting of civilians immoral for any cause or reason?

Are you aware that most people differentiate between civilian deaths that are cause because scumbag terrorists hide behind them and get them killed and those terrorists who attack civilians directly and deliberately?

I'd say you are an NDP type whose sense of right and wrong is defective. If you think that the civilians living in the occupied territories deserve to die, that the US soldiers doing their best to protect Iraqis from the terrorists deserve to die you are a worthless, terrorist supporting asshole and you should kill yourself now and do society a favour.
Just please tell me you aren't a teacher and have no children.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 1:20:31 PM

Good one Warwick. I voted Conservative in the last election - mainly for a "fresh start" and the nice tax breaks.

Like I have said in another thread, you value certain lives over others. I don't.

I would say that you're a worthless white-supremacist asshole. But I won't. Because your opinions are valid. Like a typical neo-con, however, no one is allowed to have an opinion different from yours.

Of course, I have children. That's why when four children from Montreal died in Lebanon last week, I was very saddened. Not angry because Israel did not target these children. I was saddened because they died in the middle of a tragic situation that no one wants to solve from either side.

Contrast that with you: four Arab children died so you probably jacked off in your bed. Like a true asshole. If you're such a f*ckin' true patriot, then go and fight on the front lines in Iraq and southern Lebanon. Didn't think you would.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 1:28:48 PM

And furthermore, Warwick, you can explain the US troops that were in Bosnia in 1993-1995, Rwanda in the mid-nineties, darfur right now. Oh you can't?? What?? Those countries don't control oil?? But all the people dying?? The tyranny??

Please spare me the bait-and-switch arguments for being in Iraq. Nobody doubts that Saddam was a tyrant. So was the US-installed Pinochet in Chile. Didn't see any US invasion of Chile, did we?

Look, Bush had his reasons. None of them justifiable. It's EXTREMELY sad that US troops have lost their lives (I apologize, it was perhaps over-the-top to wish them harm). However, perhaps if Bush had thought out how many Iraqis were going to die, as well as how many Americans ones as well, he may not have done it. But I doubt it. But it was about oil and evening out family scores. And if you know otherwise, please do tell.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 1:36:25 PM

Geoff H.: Shame! No doubt you have lots of friends on both sides of the issue. Hopefully your children aren't reading your post, it's rather vulger in every sense of the word. Turmoil in the tinderbox that is the Middle East is a serious global problem and very complex. Surely no one in their right mind can support or condone terrorists, who purposely target innocents, The regimes of Syria and Iran excepted. You voted Conservative? It appears you insight was short lived. Gutter language does not add to any debate.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-07-25 1:50:05 PM


So the US went into Iraq for oil and the cost is billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Now, instead of paying $3 a gallon for oil ... add those other costs on and ... hey the US went into Iraq because they really figured it was oil was worth playing $58 a gallon ... or whatever it works out to.

Yep, that's it. They went in to get cheaper oil.

$58 bucks a gallon is so much cheaper than $3.

Any other conspiracy theories you'd like to float? Use the word Halliburton liberally.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-07-25 1:51:30 PM


For the record, white supremacists are more likely to be against Israel, not for Israel.

No bait and switch Iraq either. Merely the point that if all the US wanted to do was whack Saddam they could have done it and left Iraqis to their fate. There is no reason to stay there except to ensure that the Iraqi people have a chance at peace. A peace they haven't known in their lives.

I would have preferred the US go after Iran which was a far bigger threat. But we are where we are and stating that you would like the yanks dead in Iraq is tantamount to suggesting that you want Iraq left to the terrorists and our side (and make no mistake, the yanks are our side) to lose. It makes you a prick.

There is a difference between supporting the invasion and supporting the continued presence there. The reason for the invasion is questionable although I don't think wrong. The reason for staying isn't debatable. The US can't leave without causing far more suffering than if they stayed. And as you like Powell so much, it was he who penned the "pottery barn" analogy - you break it you buy it. Hoping for failure here is immoral. You can object to the invasion but an objection to the current US presence means you care more about bush hatred than the civilian lives you pretend to care for.

As for the war for oil crap, it's asinine. France et al just bought it from Saddam. The US could have done so as easily. It's an argument that doesn't hold water.

The US was in Bosnia. Logistics and air support. They let Kosovo. They didn't put boots on the ground because Clinton didn't want to risk it.

As for Rwanda, the yanks were less enthusiastic about the risk after the "Blackhawk down" incident in Somalia where they tried to help and were murdered for the privilege. I'm sure Clinton (again) felt bad about the 800k deaths...

As for Darfur, I'd hazard a guess and state with some confidence that the yanks are a little busy right now and have no inkling to start a conflict on another front. I hear France's military is idle at the moment. Why don't they go? It isn't the yanks responsibility to do everything, is it?

It's specious to complain that the US shouldn't do good anywhere because they don't do good everywhere. It's a cop-out argument.

Oh, and if you're gonna complain about the supposed bait and switch, the first thing you do after words probably shouldn't be to bait and switch...

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 2:02:24 PM

Liz J, I replied with gutter language in kind (I was called an "asshole").

Sorry, but I don't share your definition of terrorist (or maybe I do). To me, a "terrorist" attacks innocent civilians (note the two words together). A civilian who lets Hezbollah launch rockets from his house would not be "innocent". A civilian who lives on occupied land is not "innocent" (he or she knows the score). A civilian who is sitting in his house in Haifa watching TV is innocent, and those sending rockets his way are terrorists. Just curious: what do you call countries that invade other countries illegally (i.e Iraq), or who build on occupied land with no intention of ever giving it back?? "Terrorist" is wrong but perhaps "corrupt" or "immoral"??

I believe that you have to neutralize "terrorism" both with force and diplomacy (i.e. look at whether their is a "root cause" to be solved that might help eradicate terrorism - I know, a little complex for the conservative mindset of "good guys vs bad guys"). The lack of a Palestinian homeland is Root Cause #1 of what ails the Middle East - obvious to all except the United States, the Harper Conservatives and some members here). So, yes, you have to eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas - but if you want to keep their membership down don't give them a valid cause to hook onto).

The real "shame" is that you see the world in one dimension - much like Peter McKay and "Steve" Harper. Still, I'm getting those tax cuts just like I voted for!!

Maybe if we can get McKay a girlfriend, she'll show him how to feel compassion for dying people.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 2:04:05 PM

If lack of a palestinian homeland is root cause number one please explain why there was conflict pre-1967 when the occupied territories were unoccupied? The Arabs attacked Israel repeatedly BEFORE DURING AND AFTER the occupation.

If lack of a palestinian homeland is root cause number one please explain why the Arabs of the region (they didn't refer to themselves as palestinians at that time) rejected their state and rejected the two-state solution as mandated by the UN in 1948?

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 2:09:43 PM

No one is asking to re-write history. Of course, the Arabs endlessly attacked Israel. That's why I support a secure, strong Israel - arms, a wall, whatever - within the pre-1967 borders. I support the concept of a Jewish state, so I am against the Arab "right-to-return" desires.

It's been nearly four decades that the West Bank has been occupied. If Israel is sincere about peace, they will give back ALL of the West Bank. The world has changed since those wars. Jordan and Egypt are not out to attack Israel. The entire world will have the onus to keep the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah in check once Palestine is created. And if they resort to rockets and suicide attacks, Israel will respond appropriately and no one, including me, will have anything to say about it because the Palestinians will have what they wanted and deserved, and therefore no further justification for unnecessarily provoking Israel.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 2:17:38 PM

That's big risk to ask Israel to take prior to the Arabs showing a real desire for peace (talking out of both sides or their mouths as Arafat did doesn't cut it.)

The west bank is the bit of territory that pinches Israel between it and the sea at its narrowest part.

It is from this territory that it would be easiest to attack Israel proper. This is why they kept this part occupied and withdrew from the other areas. In effect, Israel said that they were willing to see if the Arabs would behave themselves in the North and South before ceding the most dangerous part and leaving themselves exposed.

We see the Arab's answer in the daily rocket barrages which started long ago (they've been firing rockets since they regained their territory, what you see now is an escalation.)

I don't see Israel giving up their presence in the West Bank until the Arabs make a real bid for real peace. Until then, Israel must maintain their security. But once the Arabs really want peace (and you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath,) then Israel should support the creation of the state of Palestine.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 2:26:50 PM

Good, I think we've come full circle. There's nothing I can disagree with in your last post.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 2:38:17 PM

Although apprehensive, I, a non Jew, intend to be in attendance at the support Israel rally tomorrow July 26th in Toronto. Why?

Israel has spent it's entire modern existence defending itself from potential genocide by it's detractors. At Israel's inception Arabs or others (of any faith in 1947-48) were welcome to stay. At no time were Jews welcome to stay in any Middle Eastern Muslim Country. Some Arabs chose to stay in Israel and they voted and prospered. In Muslim countries the properties of Jews were confiscated and they were expelled without compensation even if their families lived there for 3000 years. Those Arabs continue that war and it seems they do not intend to stop. Mohamed said only to make treaties with Infidels that lasts only twenty years. Fundamentalist Fascist Muslims have taken over from the local Arabs. Now they intend to attack me and my family here in Canada. too.

Posted by: Mel N | 2006-07-25 9:13:37 PM

I must add that there were more Jewish refugees from Muslim Countries than from 1948 Israel. We do not hear about these Jewish refugees because other Jews looked after them. Muslims put their Contra's into camps for some reason or another. They refused to assimilate them for some reason.

Posted by: Mel N | 2006-07-25 9:24:56 PM


You call the West bank, "occupied territories".

Fact is, these lands are disputed lands. And so called claims have never been filed for just those territories. And, any negotiations that have been made, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA), prior to the last PA election, have not been recognized by the current terrorist Hamas lead PA government.

I know, this is probably extremely dificult for you to comprehend, on the basis of you lack of knowledge, but the right of a Jew to live in the lands referred to as the west bank, are no different from the rights of an Arab, to live in Haifa, or for that matter, Canada. You should note, the individual ownership of property is not the same as the right to and act of governing a specific region known as a country.

As for land grabbing, the Jewish people have been the rightful title owners of the lands of Israel for thousands of years. In spite of whomever has conquered the lands, from time to time, the Jewish people are the indigenous people of the lands of Israel. When you wake up to the fact that Samaria and Judea aka west bank, are included in those lands, then perhaps your biased position will be dully noted within your thick skull.

Until you wake up and recant, calling for the deaths of Jewish people, who re-settle their own lands, is disgusting!

You claim to know something about these lands. When you have completed the analysis of the archeological data on these lands, and the biblical evidence, and acknowledge the rightful title deed belongs to the jewish people, and the State of israel, along with the historical facts of the re-instatement of the State of Israel o her rightful owners, then perhaps you might be considered a thinking person. Until then, you are an agent for the enemy!

There is no difference in the war waged against Israel, by Hisbollah and Hamas! They are both terrorist organizations, that have been permitted, by gross ignorance, to muster up military power, to kill Jews. Any position in support of terror, terrorists and terrorism, no matter what suppossed concessions there may be in your mind, is criminal.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-26 10:58:22 AM

Lady, do happen to have copies of those titles that they've had for thousands of lands?? If you cuold e-mail them, that would be great.

There's nothing disputed about them under international law. They are considered OCCUPIED, whether you like or not. Yes, they have been occupied as a result of Israel turning back invaders from Egypt and Jordan but they are occupied nonetheless (just as the USA is diong in Iraq). There's no "finders keepers" in international law.

And if you're so concerned about "indigenous peoples" and "thousands of years", then I suggest that you turn your home over to the closest Native.

You'll also find many of the current occupants of your "disputed" territories weren't even born in Israel. Even the old warrior, Ariel Sharon, wasn't born in Israel.

Please put your Talmud or Torah or Book of Exodus down and get with the program.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-26 11:11:03 AM


Who defines international law? I say we get rid of international bodies as they are as impotent as Guy Lafleur! ZING!

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-07-26 11:58:20 AM


Did you happen to catch the speech the duly-elected president of Iraq gave to the US Congress today?

If not, I'm sure the text is available.

He thanked the US for its efforts, atriculated once again the purple finger as a symbol of freedom and said once Iraq finishes building up its army, the nations helping Iraq would be thanked as they're leaving. He mentioned how the GDP had doubled in a year, said a great majority of the country now lives in a relative calm.

He saved most of his vitriol for the terrorist insurgents, who are destroying the infrastructure the country is trying to build ... and even said that all members of uninvited militias will meet the same fate as did al-Zarqawi.

Sounds like the duly-elected president of Iraq and you have a difference of opinion about how much the US presence is helping the stability of the country.

See, all these jihadist actions are related, whether it be in Iraq or in south Lebanon (Hezbollah).

Once you figure that out, you'll be home free.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-07-26 11:58:52 AM

You mean the same PM of Iraq involved in the following:

"In an address to a congressional joint meeting, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not directly discuss the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah or respond to Democrats who had called on him to condemn Hezbollah and to apologize for denouncing "Israeli aggression."

Israeli aggression?? Not "measured"??

It all comes down to how much you value a life. If you feel it was worth it for tens of thousands of Iraqis to die, along with a couple of thousand American soldiers, all done on the pretense of WMD's (nope), "mission accomplished" (not yet), and all the other countless excuses, then I guess you're right.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-26 1:01:32 PM


Check Torah, Bible and Quran respectively. They are the original references, title deeds, to the lands of Israel. All reference the lands of Israel as being owned by the Jewish people.

And, the current recognized States of Israel, from the declaration of Independence, to the recognition of the State of Israel, by the UN, and all the supporting States, are also sufficient documentation. Every single conquering nation or empire, that has ever ruled over the lands of Israel, has been in full knowledge of the fact that those lands belong to the Jewish people. The Jewish people are the children of Israel. The Jewish people have the same right to the lands, as does any other indigenous peoples to their lands. And Arabs, in case you are wondering, are from the Arab peninsula. Those lands are their indigenous lands. And rightful title is held on the lands of Israel, by the historical ancient titleholders, and the current actual titleholders. You may not like this fact, but it is the truth.

And, in case you are also unaware, the State of Israel does not have an expiration date!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-26 1:54:24 PM

Thanks Lady, but mythical religious speak is not going to impress anyone. The irony, according to one of my friends from Haifa, is that the trouble-making settlers in the OCCUPIED Territories are not even from Israel (unless you're citing their relatives from a thousand years ago or more, or so says those "holy" books of yours). That pisses off REAL Israelis to no end.

You still haven't told me if you're giving up your house to Aboriginal Natives, and if you'll be returning to YOUR indigenous home (unless you're Native, then you can stay where you are).
But your posts indicate you're more Naive than Native.

Remember, religion cannot be introduced into an intellectual discussion because it makes no sense and can twisted to suit the needs of whoever talks about it.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-26 2:24:07 PM

The fact being missed is that no matter how noble the cause of the 'white man's burden' in the Stan or Iraq or the ME, it will fail because even 40 years of soldiering will nit bring to these populations what thousands of years of evolution has not. These regions do not have the intellectual or cultural capital to embrace the notion of modern liberal democracy. Nor do they desire it.

Oil has been the issue since the Royal Navy turned from coal to diesel. However, it's not about owning Iraq's oil. It's about the timely and secure flow of the black gold to the world's economies. It's the Eisenhower Doctrine writ large once more.

The fight in the ME is about ethnic genetic interest [EGI] and the homelands needed to protect that interest. Family or kin share many of the same distinctive genes, so a person’s fitness is increased by the survival and reproductive success of his kin. In benefits the Jewish EGI to see Israel survive and the reverse is also true.

"In the long run, only territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction—precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today."

Which raises the question why do Canadians of European ethnic origin care who prevails in the ME? It does not serve their EGI especially when liberal Jews and Arabs in Canada advocate for mass non-European immigration that undermines the reproductive fitness of the founding European peoples?

Posted by: DJ | 2006-07-26 2:49:19 PM

It isn't about simple material expediancy, DJ, genetic or economic.

It's about right, wrong, and faithfulness.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-07-26 2:57:11 PM

In a free society people like Geoff are entitled to their opinions, but when they begin to mix and confuse myths and Arab propaganda with facts they need to be called on it.

There is nothing in international law that states that Israel has no right to Gaza and the West Bank, nor is there anything granting it to the so-called Palestinians. Let us actually look at the facts. There has never been a Palestinian government, a Palestinian people, culture or language. The Romans gave the name to Jewish land when they crushed the Jewish revolt. When Britan held the mandate for "Palestine", there were no Arab claims of occupation, and Trans-Jordan, later Jordan, was carved out of 70% of the area and given to the Arabs. When the rebirth of Israel took place and the Arab countries tried to wipe out the Jews, Jordan and Egypt invaded and occupied the West Bank, Gaza and most of Jerusalem. They remained in total control of the area, ensuring that no Jews remained, until the 1967 war, again started by the Arabs to wipe out the rest of the Jews in what remained of Israel. They lost and Israel gained control of it along with Sinai. During all the time Egypt and Jordan were there, there was no call for any "Palestinian state" nor any cry of "occupied territories".

For anyone still pushing the canard that this is about "occupied territories", the present war started by the Arabs mades a lie of it. Israel was attacked within her own borders after wrongly pulling out of Gaza. Anyone now sitting on the fence about supporting Israel is clearly pro-Islamist.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-07-26 4:03:31 PM

What is wrong or faithless about the defence of your own people, Speller? And if it is right to stand with the Jews in defence of their homeland, then why is there no reciprocity? Why do liberal Jews and many Jewish conservatives ineluctably support race-replacement of Euro-Caucasians in their homeland? It's not about right, wrong or faithfulness for many Jews. It's about serving their ethnic interest. A Jewish homeland is right for the Jews, but an overwhelmingly white Christian Canadian homeland is persistantly assailed and attacked because it is viewed as a much greater threat than the mass immigration of Islam. It's seen as one step from Treblinka, even though over a million overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Christian Canadians enlisted to quell the Nazi beast. We are still tarred with the same brush.

And while we are supposed to stand by Israel "rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine.

It’s very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters, and between terror action and legitimate military action,” he said. “Imagine that Hamas or Hezbollah would call the military headquarters in Tel Aviv and say, ‘We have placed a bomb and we are asking you to evacuate the area’.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”."

It's the very same dissembling tactics used by the murdering IRA. Lessening the moral turpitude of murder by making the action legitimate. Fair enough, but how does that blatantly nepotistic stance, what is good is what is good for Israel or Hezbollah, or whomever, engender support? And why is it illegitimate for Euro-Canucks to invoke the same sentiment? What is good is what advances the interest of my people in the homeland they settled and carved from a hostile wilderness ex nihilo.

There is no benefit for Euro-Canucks to support either side in this conflict.


Posted by: DJ | 2006-07-26 4:43:51 PM

Alain, you provided a lot of useful facts - and facts they are - until you let the better of your rhetoric get to you with that last sentence. You righties see everything as black and white, us and them, evil and good.

Forget for a moment, "occupied" or "disputed". Does Israel want peace and world-wide acceptance? If so, it has to accept a two-state solution that provides a viable contiguous Palestinian country, not two rumps that are non-connected. Whether right or wrong, the only way they will get the world on side (and right now the only supporters of Israel's proposed unilateral borders are the US and the Harper Conservatives) is to revert back to the pre-1967 borders (the basis on which Israel was created (as most people recognize it, not the Biblical version that holds no credibility) or the "rebirth" as you call it.

Because I choose this solution doesn't make me an "Islamist" (a favourite word of the wingnuts). It makes me practical. An Islamist wouldn't support a strong Israel with a powerful military, with a security fence (just outside the pre-1967 borders) if it so chooses. It has never had nice neighbours, and has no reason to believe it has now.

But until Israel accepts the pre-1967 borders, it will be seen (rightly or wrongly) as wanting a land-grab to populate with a diaspora of Jews who have nothing to do with Israel (most of the Russian Jews they imported were secular, and a bunch of them just used Israel as a stepping stone to the US or Canada).

I want peace - that would involve compromise on both sides: Israel to revert back to its world-recognized borders (except by the US, Harperites and born-again Christians), and the Arab neighbours to accept Israel's existance with the knowledge that any incursion into Israel will be met with severely.

The Arab neighbours would no longer be allowed to kidnap soldiers, blow themselves up, and perhaps even enter Israel (the newly imported Jews can do the shitty jobs in Israel that Palestinians now do). And Israel will cease kidnapping cabinet members and assassinating whom they please.

I know this sort of solution will not be accepted by the right-wingers here because it minimizes Islamic bloodshed but you can find a new hobby from the pre-Sept 11 bash-bag: visible minority immigrants, gays, women who work, the homeless, people who help the homeless, etc. Anyway, once the US invades Syria, Iran and Indonesia, there'll be plenty more Islamic deaths to celebrate. Not to worry.

It's funny: this whole thing, and the mantra of the right-wingers, is about the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. But Israel has been kidnapping - oh sorry, "detaining" - Hamas and Hezbollah soldiers for years (along with the targeted assassinations). I have no problem with that, as these Hamas and Hez operatives are the enemy of Israel. But then, the IDF is the enemy of the Palestinians and Hezbollah. So all's fair, if you ask me.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-26 4:45:29 PM

DJ, I'm just curious where your "Euro-Canuck" homeland would be. I'm thinking Calgary or Edmonton because it wouldn't be too hard to vanquish the relatively small number of visible minorites and Jews in those cities. Montreal and Toronto have waaay too many visible minorities and Jews (not to mention, gays) to forcibly remove. Vancouver has got a ton of Chinese and South Asians (Sikhs, East Indians) to evacuate.

So I would suggest the Manitoba-Ontario border to the BC interior (yippee, the Harperites could have a majority government - like EVERY frickin' seat!!!). There's still the issue of all those Natives that live in western Canada (kinda like your "Palestinians"). I'm not sure where they'd go - we have quite a few reserves here in Ontario. I can look into it.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-26 4:55:05 PM

I'll not judge the faithfulness of the Jews, DJ.

I'm talking about why WE Christians are supporting Israel and the Jews. That was your question. Remember?

We are doing it because it is the right thing to do. Because Islam is wrong. And in faithfulness to God, because the Jews are His people, Israel.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-07-26 5:01:40 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.