“Lebanon” discovers the Israeli blogosphere

What is most striking is that many Israeli bloggers are incredibly knowledgeable about what is going on here (ie, Lebanon, but also the rest of the Arabic speaking region). Note that my mother sent me an article about the Nakba by the editor of An Nahar Literary Supplement from a New York based Jewish newspaper. I didn’t read a single article in the Lebanese press on Holocaust Remembrance Day. The lack of news about Israel – not an unimportant country in the region – is astounding.
Of course, there are crazy fanatics who get everything wrong, but many Israeli bloggers are remarkably well informed and incredibly evenhanded given everything that has happened to them.
I hate exchanging in the usual pan-Arabist tit-for-tat style argumentation, but think about what Israelis deal with on a daily basis: frequent suicide bombs, support for such attacks by the popularly elected Palestinian government, threats of annihilation from a country arming itself with nuclear weapons, constant words of hate from the Arabic speaking world, and remembrances of the Holocaust.
Responding with a litany of Israeli crimes does nothing to better understand who they are and their humanity. When we discuss Syria, we don’t talk about the utterly destroying the entire country and population because of the many crimes the Syrian government committed and continues to commit.

h/t Michael Totten.

Jonah Goldberg;

Because populists claim to be speaking for “the people” and because they pursue redistributionist economics, the left eagerly ignores the elitist nature of the regime. One need only look at Castro’s Cuba and its fawning, sweaty-palmed sycophants in the west to see this phenomenon on full display. Castro is on the side of “the people” and therefore his police state is entirely justified.
[…]
In America, I think a big, big, big part of the problem is the permanent civil service bureaucracy which is naturally sympathetic to big government and parties that champion big government. These governmental elites, in collusion with academia and the “helping professions,” take it upon themselves to find new ways to “run” the society (These groups, as John O’Sullivan has ably demonstrated are rapidly migrating to the global stage — he calls them transnational elites — where they are trying to turn the UN and various NGOs into post-democratic institutions). Whenever a political movement arises — like American conservatism — which challenges the elite-bureaucracy’s authority they are accused of working against “the people” and the “downtrodden.” Just look at all of the silly things people say about John Bolton. Journalists are key to this process because they share the bureaucratic elite’s vision of both government and the masses.

(Added to Stingray’s Trackback Tuesday)

Publius on the “last gentleman of the American left”;

Galbraith’s thesis in The Affluent Society was essentially a slick and updated presentation of Veblen’s attack on capitalism. More deeply it was a repetition of the New Testament’s contempt for wealth and call to seek redemption by giving one’s ill gotten gains to the poor. A Francis of Assisi who had tenure at Harvard and skied every year at Gstadd with his old pal William F. Buckley. It should be kept in mind that when Galbraith declared the American middle and upper classes were rich enough, and that their surplus wealth should be handed over to the “poor,” the American standard of living was about one-third of what it is today. In his seven decade career in public policy it seems quite literally never to have occurred to Galbraith that the big government policies he did so much to prompt, and was so talented at implementing, might perpetuate poverty rather than alleviate it.

Joel Johannesen fisks the habitually disingenuous Toronto Star;

[T]he top secret hidden agenda Harper-led Conservative Government of Canada relented and allowed this secret news release to be �unwrapped� by �sources� such that all Canadians will find out and know about it even without waiting for a phone call to be returned.

This was noticed at Daimnation, too.

Roger Clegg;

I really just do not get it. I do not understand why people who had nothing to do with a shameful act 90 years ago can or should apologize to people who have nothing in common with the victim but their skin color. And I do not understand, I really don’t, how this is supposed to advance rather than retard racial relations. Does any person, black or white, really think that there is any adult American today who does not (a) know about and (b) lament such lynchings? The article talks about “mak[ing] amends” and “confronting” and “legacies” and “reconciliation” and “‘reapprochement'” and “commemorat[ing]” and “‘eas[ing] long-standing tensions in the community connected to the lynching.'” This is all just gobbledygook.
I suppose there is a pro-reparations political agenda that underlies some of this, but I think the main motivations are less political than psychological. There is white guilt, of course, and–more tragically–there is the need among some African Americans to keep on the front-burner the nation’s racist past, since this somehow helps them explain existing socioeconomic disparities that have little to do with discrimination any more, and everything to do with cultural dysfunction.

In a thread from yesterday, commentor “Billy B. ByTown” has offered readers a series of astonishing confessions. One must admire him/her for one thing, and on a multitude of contradictory levels – how many people have the courage (even from behind the safety of a pseudonym) to openly declare their unqualified cowardice?

The problem, in my view and in reality, is that free speech does indeed provoke murder. As long as western society is under siege, I do not see what good it does for individuals to select themselves for a death lottery and even less to endanger others.

Interestingly enough, he doesn’t elaborate on “what good it does” for individuals to submit.
It’s a fitting preface for this David Warren column titled “Wages of retreat” . A brief exerpt;

Israel faces, as we in the West also face, an enemy who will not be reconciled. It makes no sense to offer concessions to such an enemy. The whole idea of �withdrawing behind more defensible borders� is built upon illusion. Either you carry the battle to the enemy, or the enemy carries the battle to you. It is the same story, finally, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We fight them there, or they fight us here. Israel is looking directly into that quandary. We still look on from far away.

Billy B. is still among the “far away”. But, thinking it over, his confession is a bit disingenuous – for he’s not really concerned that taking a stand on such issues from the relative safety of North America is likely to visit violence upon himself or others. What we are witnessing from Billy B. is just practice for the real thing.
I published the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on this site, and also host the full collection on another server, Tens of thousands viewed them, yet I recieved not so much as a single email of protest, much less threats. So, let’s not exaggerate the risk one takes in North America in pushing the Mohammed envelope – this isn’t Holland, after all.
We can only hope that “Billy B” and others of his kind can summon up the true courage it takes to remove their blinders and view the real world “wages of retreat”, both past and present. At the very least, they might drop the unsupportable and absurd argument that speech can kill, for (as I once reminded Warren Kinsella) – Harry Potter is not a documentary.
Perhaps it will assist them in rethinking this willing march towards submission before we are forced “look on it” from over our own back fences.
Billy B states in a followup post that “My original point was a simple one and I will state it again. I do not have the right to put others at risk.”
And he’s right about that – on the question of whether or not to concede our fundamental democratic freedoms to threats of violence, we do not have the right – we have the duty.

Speaking as one who is decidedly non-religious, the following statement has a lot to recommend it;

At the Third Station of the Cross, where Jesus falls for the first time, Archbishop Comastri has written: �Lord, we have lost our sense of sin. Today a slick campaign of propaganda is spreading an inane apologia of evil, a senseless cult of Satan, a mindless desire for transgression, a dishonest and frivolous freedom, exalting impulsiveness, immorality and selfishness as if they were new heights of sophistication.�

Times Online notes “some will regard their emphasis on sin and the dark side of human nature as retrograde”. Oddly enough!
Full text of the meditations at the Vatican website.
(SDA flashback.)

Jeff Jarvis on how you can help Iraq blogger Zeyad (Healing Iraq) attend CUNY�s new Graduate School of Journalism.

We are reaching out to foundations and individuals and working on scholarships and Zeyad is working to raise money. But that won�t do it all. We will. All of you inspired Zeyad to blog and give his invaluable perspective on Iraq. That inspired him to give up his career as a dentist and report for his blog as well as for NYTimes.com, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. So now I hope we will all show what the blogosphere can do and raise the funds one of our own needs to come to America to study. You have two means to give.

Shall we see how much we can raise? Once you donate, let me know in the comments section. I’ll start things off by sending a $50US cheque today to the CUNY fund.
Dean Steve Shepard
CUNY Graduate School of Journalism
535 E. 80th St.
New York, NY 10021
Make sure to note that this is for the �Zeyad Scholarship Fund.�

SDA commentor “Doug”;

“It’s nice to know that liberal academia is now in stealing their ideas from 1970’s Batman cartoon villians.”

“Was that really the only place you could find to host a petition in support of a dead child? “

James Joyner attended the Christopher Hitchens organized rally today at the Danish Embassy in DC, Photos and a report (plus other linkage) are up at OTB.
Lots at Instapundit, too.

Tough talk from Australia;

Anyone wanting to live under Islamic law (shari’a) might feel more comfortable living in countries where it is applied, such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, federal Treasurer Peter Costello said in an address to the Sydney Institute, a think tank.
In a pledge of allegiance, immigrants taking on Australian citizenship declare: “I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.”
Costello said that anyone “who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.”
Any Muslim planning to immigrate to Australia should first consider its values.
“Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes,” Costello said. “This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks don’t enter the mosque.
“Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objection to those values, don’t come to Australia.”

Someone is finally getting to the point.
When the concept of a “multicultural” society was presented first to Canadians, the majority took it to mean more pavilions at Folkfest.
After all, no matter what our race, heritage and family history may be- the vast majority of those living in the west share the same culture. Culture isn’t dressing up in a kilt once a year, or celebrating Ukranian Christmas. It’s climbing in your Dodge Caravan, popping in a Red Hot Chili Peppers CD on the way to pick up the kids from hockey or soccer or band practice. It’s heating up a frozen pizza and flipping the channels to find CNN or Jeopardy.
Behind all the feel-good pap we’re fed about the Canadian “mosaic”, there is an unpleasant, politically incorrect reality that must always be made clear. There are cultures and religious practices that are structurally incompatable with a liberal democracy – not the least of these is threatening violence towards those who mock or criticize your religious beliefs.
Western democracies cannot make concessions on these points – even minor ones – without destabilizing and eroding our rights and freedoms. That’s what “incompatable” means – the two cannot coexist without one giving up ground on its fundamental principles.
In contrast, we have this troubling quote from Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano. If this is what the Vatican means by “taking a stand”, perhaps they should quit while we’re only a little behind…

“If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us,”

Worded differently – “If we tell our people they have the right to offend, you have the right to destroy us.”
Apparently, it hasn’t occurred to Cardinal Sodano that when someone believes they are entitled to destroy you in response to being offended, you’re not being offered a say in who has what rights.
With Cardinals like this, who needs Imams?

Just one of a collection.
h/t

David George Mullan;

I am in a similar situation to Peter March, although I must say that I have trouble taking seriously any philosopher who is so profoundly contemptuous of all religion. But I digress. About a week ago I began putting up copies of the cartoon of Bomb-Head Muhammad, and after seeing them disappear, learned that a couple of �colleagues� had been removing them. Yesterday I put up two more, and on one of them wrote in red pen: �Every one who removes these cartoons is a traitor to freedom.� They were still there when I left yesterday. I also prepared a poster to carry with me to classes yesterday, just a standard piece of Bristol board. On it I wrote: �Stand up for Denmark, Professor March, UPEI Cadre [not knowing that the SU there was about to go wobbly], and Freedom.� I carried it in the morning and had lunch in my office.

The rest is here

Stanley Kurtz thinks Canadians are being played for fools;

In mid-January, Canada was rocked by news that a Justice Department study had called for the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy. Actually, two government studies recommended decriminalizing polygamy. (Only one has been reported on.) And even that is only part of the story. Canadians, let me be brutally frank. You are being played for a bunch of fools by your legal-political elite. Your elites mumble a confusing jargon to your face to keep you from understanding what they really have in mind.
[…]
Martha Bailey, Queens University law professor and chief author of the now infamous report advocating the decriminalization of polygamy, played an important organizing role in the Beyond Conjugality project (translation: the �Abolish Marriage� project). In 2004, Bailey published an article, �Regulation of Cohabitation and Marriage in Canada,� arguing that, after the legalization of same-sex marriage, Canadians would be able to turn their attention to the more urgent business of abolishing marriage itself. (That article is the source of items #2, #3, and #4 above.) So it is hardly surprising that Bailey has now called for the decriminalization of polygamy. What�s that you say? How does legalizing polygamous marriage advance the cause of abolishing marriage? Canadians, I�m going to have to spell it out for you in a way that Martha Bailey and her friends on the Law Commission of Canada will not.

Our incoming Environment Minister;

[B]asically a Kyoto compliant Canada would be like something out of a Mad Max movie, but without the souped-up cars.

Belmont Club;

Hamas may have won the Palestinian elections, which may in turn make Benjamin Netanyahu the next Prime Minister of Israel. CNN is now reporting that the current Palestinian government has resigned. The election of Hamas taken together with the crisis in Iran suggests that that the world is being challenged by very deeply rooted forces which traditional international institutions may be incapable of handling. The way to safety hangs on events that haven’t resolved themselves yet. Whether the policy of democraticization has blunted the rush to madness — Egyptian blogger the Big Pharaoah thinks Middle East democracy boosts Islamists; whether Iran will acquire the bomb; whether Israel will draw its sword to prevent it; whether Syria’s ruling dynasty will fall; whether Europe will break out of its demographic death-spiral. Because success relies so much on the exploitation of contingent events it’s a dangerous time for America to be divided, with one side unsure of whether any real danger besides BushchimpHitler exists and the other in the grip of a half-articulated policy; both almost fatalistically slouching towards a
future where there are no certain or even probable endings.

Just beneath the surface of many self-described Canadian “progressives”, (not to mention a few of those new “metropolitan” opposition MP’s) runs a strong and virulent anti-Israeli current.
That surface is about to be scratched. Watch what happens.

I don’t know how I missed this, but Diane Francis has a blog up. Her latest entry is a report from Davos;

But every year, the panelists mostly incorrect and last year was no exception. The majority view back then was that the U.S. would come unstuck in 2005 due to overspending and the dollar would plummet. Instead, the U.S. dollar went up in value and its economy grew nicely.
The only exception to last year’s bearishness was Jacob Frenkel, vice chairman of insurance giant AIG and former head of Israel’s central bank.
“The dire predictions didn’t materialize which is a reflection of the robustness of the U.S. economy,” he said. “It’s capable of absorbing enormous shocks.”
U.S. trade deficits are happily financed by Japanese, Chinese and other Asian countries with trade surpluses and they are not about to pull the plug.
“The U.S. overspends and Asia over-saves,” he said. “The U.S. dollar is not going to collapse. Where else will investors go? Japan holds US$1 trillion of U.S. debt and China US$500 billion. The more you are invested in an asset like this, the more vulnerable you are to collapses so you are reluctant to let that happen.”

Caller to John Gormley Live;

“How is it that the same Finance Minister* who knew nothing about Sponsorship now knows everything about Income Trust trading?”