Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Making the world safe for dictatorship | Main | MSM vs. the blogs »

Monday, July 31, 2006

So that's what a UN ceasefire looks like

So mere hours into Israel's unilateral cessation of airstrikes, Hezbollah fires two Katyusha rockets into the Israeli town of Kiryat Shemona.

Any minute now, I just know it, Kofi Annan and the UN will have an emergency meeting condemning Hezbollah for this atrocity, and Bill Graham and CNN and the CBC will go wall-to-wall with their coverage of this attack on civilians.

Or maybe not.

What do you call it when you have a double-standard? What do you call it when that double standard applies only to one country, and that country happens to be Jewish? Why, unless you are into the euphemisms of diplomacy, you call it anti-Semitism.

At the UN? Couldn't be!

Posted by Ezra Levant on July 31, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference So that's what a UN ceasefire looks like:


"So mere hours into Israel's unilateral cessation of airstrikes, Hezbollah fires two Katyusha rockets into the Israeli town of Kiryat Shemona."

Really? Your link brings me to an unknown, poorly designed website which is unabashadedly Pro-Israel. The story carries no byline, is not carried by any other reputable sites, and in short is unverified and highly suspect. And it reports there were zero casualties. Hmmm.

A better sourced, more reputable, and widely reported AP story has it the other way: the Israelis broke their self-imposed ceasefire within hours and without provocation, and with casualties:

"JERUSALEM - Israeli warplanes carried out airstrikes in southern Lebanon on Monday, hours after agreeing to temporarily halt raids while investigating a bombing that killed nearly 60 Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children seeking shelter."


What do you call it when you are on the wrong side of an argument and make groundless, tiring, and increasingly ineffective charges of racism? Why, unless you are into the euphimisms of statism you call it "Political Correctness!"

At the Western Standard? Pas possible!

Posted by: Fizz | 2006-07-31 1:57:20 PM

The "poorly designed wbsite Fizz is referring to is DEBKAfile, the most accurate source of news and information about turmoil in the Middle East which has been in business for many decades and whose senior personnel are former members of Mossad. I believe nothing I read or see, or hear from the CBC and CTV is worse, and CNN are professional liars. CNN's Christine Ammapour is known to the Western World's soldiers as "Ms. Death" a woman without a sense of the consequences on an international basis
of lack of truth in reporting!

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-07-31 2:23:29 PM

The AP is a better source on middle eastern affairs than DEBKAfile? Are you trying make me collapse in laughter?

Fizz, you're nothing but anti-semitist scum. You know nothing about the real world because you read the AP, CP, CBC and CTV. How about you do some research for once and read real news. There's a reason why DEBKA is pro Israel and that is because anybody who knows anything about middle-eastern conflicts would know that Israel is always the one being attacked and subjected to tyranny at the hands of Muslims scum buckets. You're a fool Fizz. You're nothing but an anti-semitic piece of shit.

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-07-31 2:29:33 PM

Nice try, Fizz, but ultimately a failure, because you elided the salient note in the AP report to the effect that: "Israel left open the option it might hit targets to stop imminent attacks or if the military completed its inquiry within 48 hours."

Although, I s'pose that if you don't even know the strengths and weaknesses of Debka's reports, I shouldn't be surprised that you don't know the strengths and weaknesses of AP reports. The report you have referenced is clearly one-sided, anti-Israeli, and anti-American, unless you don't want to see clearly, of course.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 2:30:28 PM

And the UN had exactly what to do with this cease fire? They organized it? They authored its terms? They were tasked with enforcing it? What was their role that it can be called a "UN ceasefire"?

Posted by: stageleft | 2006-07-31 2:32:20 PM

The UN and most of the world is voluntarily blind, foolish and cruelly anti semitic.

They persist in believing that the Muslim world is going to hear and comply with a unilateral cease fire that only ISRAEL complied with,

---in spite of decades of recorded statements by arab heads of state, imams, and other Muslim leaders that no matter what else happens, they vow death to Israel.

So once again, Israel has compassion, stops, and gets bombed for it's trouble.

Whose fault is this???????

Meanwhile the world media is avoiding a look at how Lebanon brought it on itself by tolerating Hezbollah, and allowing Hezbollah to reside in areas with high concentrations of women and children.

Avoiding the very thought that if the Hezbollah would desist from firing into Israel in the first place, that all these innocent bystanders might still be alive.

Those Muslim terrorists have no compassion on the women and children who become targets, blaming Israel for defending itself.

Whose fault is this?????


Posted by: canadian freedoms fan | 2006-07-31 2:33:59 PM

Possibly he is referring to the following. See about half way down. There is no specific timeline, happened yesterday, AFTER the Qana bombing.

As you can see the source is the BBC, hardly an Israeli supporter.


Posted by: Mike D | 2006-07-31 2:37:08 PM

oh and btw as a loyal Canadian, I'd rather support Israel thank you very much.

They have a democracy, and an economy, and they are reasonable people when they aren't being bombed to death.

Gee maybe I might be even less reasonable if I was being bombed.

They have a right to defend themselves.

We can listen to the Arab states surrounding Israel when they stop calling for genocide.

Demands for Genocide Do NOT belong at any negotiations. The party calling for genocide as a solution is proving they aren't ready for negotiated peace.

As for us in Canada, why on earth would we even consider trying to please the Arabic Muslim terrorist supporting states???????

If we so much as blink in a way they don't like they are calling for death to the West.

Where as Israel disagrees with us regularly without shrieking for a jihad on Canada.

Gee who should we be best friends with, now let me go think------????????????????

Posted by: canadian freedoms fan | 2006-07-31 2:39:38 PM

The point, Stageleft, is simply that the UN has always been uniformly one-sided on the matter of Israel. It matters not whether the UN was involved in the interim stoppage of anti-missle-launcher strikes, which was explicitly not claimed to be a cease-fire by Israel, what matters is whether or not the UN can treat the Israelis, running a modern functioning democracy searching for peace, with even the respect they seem to be so quick to afford actual despots.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 2:40:09 PM

It would help if we could have simple truth, sans spin and rhetorical bias coming from our main networks, CBC and CTV. CNN is great if you your into sensationalism. It's hard to gauge the amount of support for the the Israelis in their fight for their exisitence. According to our daily feed of information from the usual subjects there is a whole lot of support for terrorists in this country and it's not all imported. It's a very sickening and dangerous state of affairs to have the media tinkering with the facts to feed their agenda to manipulate opinion. And we think it's a bad thing in places like China where there is only one opinion allowed.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-07-31 3:04:17 PM

Alas, Liz, the media has always tinkered with the facts. It is the job of the vigilant citizen to attempt to distill the complex truth from the morass. Because in realpolitik, there are no simple truths.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 3:19:14 PM

Jack Macleod,

You forgot CBC's Adriena Rrsehole (Spelling someone)!

And of course, all those people, who love Hisboillah infection, well, they are whom Adriena et al will be inviting for dinner!

So, what shall they eating tonight, hmmm?

Oh, they'll be sucking on the limbs of Jewish babies, no doubt!

Think I am imageining things?

Well, they said it, not me! They said they would gnash on the limbs of dead Jewish people, and drink our blood.

And that goes against everything I believe!

And where was Adriena when all that coverage was happenning?

Oh, she was covering some article on youth fighting youth, while blaming that on the Israelis as well! What an ugly piece of trash reporter she is!

Amazing, she takes cover when Jews are being massacred, and makes coverage on all the defenceless women and children, who have been herded into the room next to the Hisbollah terrorist missile launchers. As IF they did not know what they were doing! I simply DO NOT believe they did not know, they were taking their children into a building, that houses a missile launcher in the very next room. You can hear those things rocketing 20 kms away!

And, we saw all teh women signing up for the job. It was in their papers!

Well, Hisbollah carpet cleaning services, well, they are busying themselves, with trying desperately to get the hole world to hate Israel. In the end, they are going to be despised more than any other people on the planet, and they can thank their friends, the palestinkians, and jadians, and the mjahadeen, and all the rest of the disgusting racist pigs!

Oh my, I do believe, I have just perspired! Time to cool off, and get refresshed. Nice sharing this with you Jack. And I hope you are not offended with my forthrightness?

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-31 3:43:44 PM


You are right. It is anti-Semitism. When the UN has as many resolutions against the terrorists, for every single one of the missiles, that have been fired at Israel, as they have had for Israel, while she has defended herself, then maybe they might be able to say it is not anti-Semitism.

As for the comment, reference the use of the word anti-Semitism and the politically correct, well, anti-Semitism is a word that came out well before the socialists and their dogmatic fools, invented politically correct terminology.

Politically correct terminology came as a response to someone's feelings being hurt, when faced by a caloused institutionalization of a term, such as 'mentally retarded', which became "special", which became, "developmentally challenged" etc....

Case in point would be, what do you call a Semite in the politically correct? Are Jews offended at being called Semities? No, they are not. Jews, are Semites, are the direct descendants of the children of Israel. No problem with that. Go ahead, try offending me. You could say, hey you! Jew! Hey you! Jew-jew-jew-jew!

No, I would not be offended, as it is the truth. I am a Jew.

So, Jew is not a term that is an insult for Semite, even though they are both the same.

BUT, if you say that they can kill us, and we are not permitted to defend ourselves, well then that is anit-Semitism. They get even dirtier than before, and place women as shields are missile launchers, with their children, and we have to defend ourselves. It is an absolute horror that they have created, but it is the situation.

And, the only way to stop this, is to stop the terrorist forces, from firing rockets into civilian towns, villages and cities.

I pray for help.

Someone, please help.

Someone, stop these people from doing those attacks, and killing Jewish people. Someone, please stop them. We will defend ourselves, and it is not a pretty site. There is no politically correct terminology, that can make it swoosh away!

May the almighty protect us all!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-31 3:54:08 PM

Right you are. It is the same old sickness that caused the Holocaust and the blame lay with the whole world basically. The blame is not limited to Europe as so many believe, for there were those who carried out the killing of men, women, children and infants, there were those who supported and assisted them in this task (especially the Arabs), there were those who refused refuge to the ones who managed to escape the Nazis thus sending them to their death (among them Canada, the U.S. and most of the world) and there were those who gave refuge to Nazi war criminals.

There has never been another example where it was decided to hunt down and kill every individual regardless of age or sex in order to wipe out a whole people. It is true that communism murdered even greater numbers of people and that their lives were no less valuable. So stating the uniqueness of the Holocaust does not in any way devalue the lives of other victimes, nor should it.

So here we are again roughly 60 years later witnessing the same signs. Clearly the war Israel was forced into is not solely her war, since Iran through Hizbollah and Hamas declared war back in the late 70's on America and the West. The non-Jewish victims have been many, yet the rest of the world now (including the Americans) either side with the enemy in one form or another or they remain on the sideline of indifference. How tragic that the world seems to have learned nothing from the Holocaust.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-07-31 3:56:41 PM

Funny, when racism is clearly demonstrated towards the Jewish race (which, although I am not a member of, I fell empathy for, as the Slavs were equally targetted by the Nazis for extermination), the apologists will try to call it anything but. However, when anyone demonstrates how radical Islam is corrupting millions of people, how quick they are to hurl the term "racist", even when the target is a RELIGION, a conscious choice of beliefs. I have no time for these fools. Fizz and his ilk are either double-thinking and deluding themselves, or are true racist scum. I personally believe it's a little of both.

Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-07-31 4:04:21 PM

Indeed, Big Makk. It is almost always the case these days that when one uses the term racist, one is shooting one's argument in the foot (unless it is disclaiming someone else's mis-use, of course, that's covered under the self-defense clause). Here's the "Usage Note" on "race" from the American Heritage Dictionary.

"The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans.

"The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.)

"The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points, anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact."

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 4:15:35 PM

We'll hear the UN saying that that Hezbollah is wrong about the same time we hear Ezra Levant saying Israel shouldn't have killed all those innocent children.

Posted by: Be Consistent | 2006-07-31 4:47:39 PM

Your condition, B.C., requires that the action was intentional. The available reports do not support that position.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 4:55:21 PM

I am completely astounded at the numbers of so-called civilized people in our own Country and others around the Western world who are siding with filth in the muslim world.

Lady's cry for help is not lost on me. I am not a Jew, but being a lover of freedom and admirer of the Jewish people, I will beg for help too. We are next right after the Jews.

Wise up people, this is the Big One!

Posted by: Duke | 2006-07-31 4:57:57 PM

"Jew is not a term that is an insult for Semite, even though they are both the same."

You're wrong, again. Not all Semites are Jews.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-31 4:58:05 PM

Media coverage of the recent escalation has been staggeringly biased to the point of being deeply malevolent. That this malevolence is widely shared by the broad left, and the activist tribe behind the scenes at CBC helps to confuse people trying to sort things out.

I mean, here we have Hezbollah, a political party that holds twice as many equivalent seats in the Lebanese parliament as the NDP does in Canada, launching unprovoked missile attacks on civilian targets in Israel; when Israel responds, as any nation on earth would do, the media relentlessly attacks them for it, and portrays the nation of Lebanon as the victim.

If the US lobbed missiles into Mexico in an unprovoked attack based on a theology of hatred of Mexicans, would these reporters portray the US as being the victim of any Mexican response? Would they continuously neglect to point out, as they have in the recent ME conflict, that America started hostilities in an unprovoked attack? We all KNOW they wouldn't.

Israel is obviously being held to a completely different standard than any other nation on earth by "progressive" reporters and producers who can't restrain themselves from pruriently appropriating death and suffering to help them build up a propaganda narrative to use against Israel. Much of the media coverage is insane-making and ominuous and unjust, and, if you scrape the surface of their somber righteousness, evil in its calculations.

It's patently obvious that to certain activist producers and reporters, Israel, by defending itself, is completely missing the point.

Posted by: EBD | 2006-07-31 5:54:34 PM

I'd rather die with the Jews than live with the Muslims.

Posted by: rebarbarian | 2006-07-31 6:55:18 PM

I think that, in the nominal connotative sense, Rebarbarian should get some kind of poignancy award for that comment.

On the other hand, in the nominal denotative sense, I already live with jews and muslims, at the same time, in the same room, on a daily basis, and since they are all moderate (remember, we're talking Edmonton here, not the middle east), we seem to get along just fine.

I mention this because this has really been the crux of the undergirding debate here at the Shotgun for the last few days. At what point does the connatitive convenience of word-concepts become a risk to one's own perspective due to their deontational shortcommings? In other words, at what point does lazyness cancel the advantages of the covenience?

In the matter of the particular case at hand, if people lazily use connotational conveniences in a manner which impedes the political possibility of their perspective being respected, then that lazyness, or anger, or lack of knowledge, whatever it is, becomes a net loss to the individual practicing it.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-07-31 7:20:23 PM

Vitruvius: Muslims can live quite happily in the Judeo-Christian world. The inverse is not so.

Posted by: rebarbarian | 2006-08-01 5:16:58 AM

The inverse is so. I know Christains who have lived very happily in Turkey, Indonesia and several other spots quite happily.

Is it more problematic at the moment? Yes. But to say Christians can’t live there is wrong.

I remember having to coax some of our people to the airport in Tehran and Beirut during troubled times, because they did not want to leave. I know some Canadian oil guys that enjoyed Algeria.

Canadians, even here at the Shotgun, get their disinformation about the world from the CBC. They say they don’t but they do. Turn your TV off, learn how the world works.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-01 6:47:50 AM

Right you are Alain,

We see and know that the same concensus is being acheived in the backward places of the earth. We know they know we know. They have taken the first step in pre-emptying WWIII. Like USA failed in finnishing off the issue during the Gulf war, so did the west fail to address the issue, and make they, those who became David Frums coined term, the axis of evil, brought to the light, and shown for their ever continuing of the nazis doctrine of anti-Semitism, and their wish to destroy all Jews.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-01 10:22:46 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.