Bibi is the Winner as Barak Leaves Labor to Sit as an Independance

It takes tremendous skill both in strategy and foresight to rise to power to lead a Government and hold on to that power over a period of time. In many cases these skills are much more important then the ability to govern. Jean Chretien, Bill Davis, Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney are examples of political leaders who have succeeded. The flip side are Joe Clark, Paul Martin, Kim Campbell and Joe Tory who just couldn't pull it off.

The biggest failure in recent Israeli politics is without a doubt Tzipi Livni. When she took over as chairperson for Kadima she could not get Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign. This meant she had to form her own coalition from scratch instead of inheriting the Government at the time. She failed forcing elections to be called. She then beat out Likud by one mandate but couldn't convince anyone that she deserved first shot at forming a Government.

Yesterday, Defence Minister Ehud Barak quit the Labor Party to form his own Atzmaut (Independance) Party, taking 4 more MKs with him. A lot is being made on Barak's motivations but the steps by Bibi to engineer this move have been mostly over looked.

When Bibi was given the mandate to form the government his goal was to form a stable Government. He managed to get enough parties on board, so that he was in a position to weather threats by smaller parties to quit the coalition. Bringing in Labor had some extra benefits. Barak proved himself to be a competent military leader both during Cast Lead and destroying Jewish homes, where the only reason they were illegal is they did not have his signature.

Half the party choose to stay in the opposition. However a Labor Party by-law meant that any of those MKs who voted against Labor supported Government legislation would not be allowed to run for Labor in the next election. This party split was difficult on the Government as there were effectively opposition members holding cabinet positions but the balance was even more difficult for Barak to hold on to. The eventual split of the Labor party was inevitable.

Once the dust settles, there are going to be 3 political parties (Artzenu, Kadima, Labor) that will be effective fighting for the same ground on the political spectrum. While the 3 battle it out Bibi will be in a much better position to build support on political territory not being as strongly contested. Bibi once again comes out ahead from another political misfortune that he helped create. The only question is if voters will turn on Barak and put the final nail in his political career.

Obama Offers Not to Sell Out Israel in Exchange for False Hope

Obama is pushing ahead with his attempts to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table with Israel. It looks like Israel is going to accept his proposal for Freeze II. Israel will once again stop construction for 90 days in the West Bank in exchange for some military equipment and a promise not to sell out Israel on the world stage (for now). Plenty has already been written on how Obama's hands on diplomacy has made a bigger mess than he started with. The best articles on the Obama approach to peace talks are here and here.

In an effort to restart Peace talks, at the end of last year the Israeli government agreed to a settlement freeze for 10 months. Politicians promissed it would show the world that Israel is serious about reaching an agreement and the Palestinians would have only one shot. As expected the opposite happened. The Palestinians waited 9 months to join the negotiating table and made it clear they would walk without an extension. Instead of commending Israel for their efforts the world decided that the Palestinians must be appeased and Obama flexed is Presidential powers to make it happened.

If there is going to be another Freeze there needs to be at least some chance of success. Instead of hoping the Palestinians will return to the negotiating table it should be a condition of Israel accepting the freeze. Another condition should be that the moment the Palestinians walk away from the table the freeze is automatically over. It is the only scenario that doesn't result in a repeat of the original diplomatic failure.

Obama has mistakenly made settlements the #1 obstacle to peace. What is going to happen come January? He will have to choose between honouring his commitment to Israel or continuing to spar with Israel over settlement construction.

UNESCO to Declare Mosque of the Nativity, Palestinian Holy Site?

The most effective political weapon being used the Palestinians is the use of the political arena. The aim is to create the perception that the Jewish people have no connection to the land of Israel and to instigate scenarios that make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world. The United Nations has been a key tool to this goal. Palestinian leadership can call on the Arab world to pass any condemnation of Israel they wish.

This week UNESCO passed 5 resolutions condemning Israel. Sadly, most of them could be dismissed as just another example of intentional ignorance of the facts on the ground. One resolution was particularily disturbing by it's implications. UNESCO demanded Israel remove Me'arat HaMachpela (Tomb of the Patriarchs) and Kever Rochel (Rachel's Tomb) from the Israel's list of heritage sites. They consider these mosques to be integral part of the Palestinian identity and Israel has no right to control them.

Me'arat HaMachepela is the burial place of the founders of the Jewish people. Avraham and Sarah; Issac and Rifka; Yaakov and Leah are buried there. As descendants of Avraham the Arabs claim the spot as there own holy spot. For centuries Jews were only able to approach the outside of the building but never enter.

Under Israeli control a compromise has been put in place recognizing the importance to both Jews and Muslims. The building is split in half with seperate entrances. 10 days a year, the entire building is open exclusivly to Jews and 10 days the entire building is open exclusivley to Muslims. When the dates conflict priority is given to the Muslim calendar. The Muslim side has undergone renovations over the years, while the Waqf has refused to allow any major renovations on the Jewish side. The United Nations condemning a solution that mostly works, comes as no surprise.

Kever Rochel is the burial place of Rochel the other Jewish Matriarch. Through the centuries it was an important place for Jews to pray. She is completely irrelevant to Muslim tradition Elder of Ziyon has documented that it was not until after the Oslo Accords that this important Jewish site was started to be referred to as an ancient holy mosque.

The goal of the condemnation is to disconnect the Jewish people from their founders and further discredit, the history of their presence on the land. Kever Rochel has extra meaning because Jewish tradition teaches it was in her merit that the God promised her the Jews would return from exile. It is the reason that when Jews make Aliyah (immigrate to Israel) the song Shavu Banim (Her Children have returned to their borders) is sung in shul.

Kever Rochel is no more an anicient Muslim holy site than; the Mosque of the Nativity, Mosque of the Holy Sepulcher, or the Mosque being built at the World Trade Centre.

The United States is the only country to vote against the 5 resolutions, with a dozen or so choosing to take a knee and abstain. Rewriting history for political means, is a disgrace to UNESCO who has as it's goal to preserve culture and education. The countries that choose to remain silent and watch should be embarrassed for not being brave enough to stand up for the truth.

Toronto Voters Face Tough Decision

With Municipal elections taking place tomorrow, I am glad I don't have to live with the consequences of choosing the new Mayor. While David Miller has taken himself out of the race, each of the remaining candidates have major flaws that put into question their ability to lead.

Rob Ford - Ford has been a tremendous assest to City Council. He has been a thorn in the side to many in the old boys networks of patronage and privilege. He has recieved rath and scorn from councillors who were not happy with his boat rocking. He was even investigated for not spending enough money from his office budget. He has fought and lost many times to put a cap on spending or to reduce the perks councilors are entitled to. His fiscally responsible approach is what has put him within range of this election. However their is more to being a Mayor then cutting spending. The city also needs to be allocate funds wisely in order to grow and prosper. I just don't see Ford being able to grow beyond his rebel image to fill the shoes necessary for the job.

George Smitherman - The last provincial election predominantly factored into our decision to leave Canada. The government campaigned on the principle that all Ontario students are entitled to the same secular public education. Catholics can also have their own education but funding any other religion is an attack on public education. Smitherman was a prominent member of the government and the election campaign.

Joe Pantalone - Pantalone was the unions only pick to run for Mayor. As Mayor he would be as close to David Miller as it is possible to get. The city needs to take control of it's finances, instead of trying to find more creative ways to tax the same people.

There is a plus side. A bunch of councillors have stepped down leaving the arena open to fresh blood with fresh ideas. Although Ford may not make it to council there are a number of fiscally responsible councilors (Doug Holyday, Karen Stintz, Denzil Minnan-Wong etc.) who should be returned to serve another term. Hopfully the fresh faces in Council and the Mayor's office combined with the reelection of deserving councilors will be a huge leap forward for the City of Toronto.

The fallout from this election is going to filter into the next Provincial election and possibly Federal election. Most people are billing it up as Ford (Hudak) vs Smitherman (McGuinty). A number of scenarios have been proposed as to who to cheer for. When McGuinty was elected Premier for his first term he campaigned that as a Liberal he would be better suited to deal with PM Paul Martin. In the end they didn't get along and Martin was kicked out of office a short time later. McGuinty is hoping a Smitherman win would bring in an era of like minded leaders that would help him in the election. The flip side is if Smitherman fails the demand for change will sweep through Queen's Park and knock the Liberals out of power.

The same analysis could play out in reverse. Ford falling flat on his face in his first year could be an anchor on Hudak, allowing McGuinty to win for a 3rd time. Win or lose Ford has a lot of political capital. If he doesn't become Mayor he will find himself a seat in Queen's Park or Ottawa. His reputation for shaking things up to help the Conservatives come election time. Which ever direction voters send his political career, he will remain a force to be reckoned with.

Israel Bashing Returns to Toronto Gay Pride Parade

The Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) have been a thorn in the side of the Toronto Gay Pride Parade for a number of years. They change the nature of the parade from an expression of unity and celebration of values, to a medium for decisiveness and controversy.

Acting out of self interest and political pressure the organizers of the parade banned the term Israel Apartheid from this years parade effectively banning QuAIA. This caused a grass roots backlash sighting an attack on free speech. In order to keep both sides happy the parade organizers have changed policy again leaving it to the City of Toronto to determine if their parade participants are behaving appropriately. It is a technical loophole that gets the parade off the hook. An ironic decision considering other parades this year, across the country have fallen to heavy criticism for not keeping out unwanted elements.

Putting aside the technical issues, does QuAIA belong in the parade? This can be answered by examining two simple questions. Is the parade an appropriate venue for political protest? Do they represent the values of the community under whose banner they choose to protest?

QuAIA sights two examples as proof that the parade is an appropriate form of protest. The parade originally started as a form of political protest and the Gay community was instrumental in the protest against Apartheid South Africa. While these may be important history lessons, they might as well be ancient history. As Gay rights have changed over the decades, so has the nature of the parade.

The second question takes the form of why single out Israel. Their response is that there are no gay rights without universal human rights. They envision, Israel as a secular democratic state stripped of it's Jewish identity. Any of their criticism of Israel are universal values that would apply anywhere in the world.

There are so many human rights issues around the world including; Arab countries denying Palestinians the rights to livelihood, property and citizenship. President of the Islamic Republic of Iran denies there are gays in his country and violently put down protests of election results, genocide in Darfur, spread of Sharia law in Asia and Africa, Hamas murder of political opponents, 2 cities in Saudi Arabia are banned to non-Muslim visitors, China's human rights record, Turkey's oppression of Armenians, Canadian issues with it's aboriginal population and many more. There are so many issues that no one individual or organization can devote resources to every issue.

Based on QuAIA, criteria in choosing Israel one would expect at least some of these issue to reverberate in the gay community, never mind manifesting into protests at the Gay Pride Parade.

For an activist who has already won their battles at home, Israel represents a low hanging fruit. It is far enough away to limit the damage from the fall out of a social engineering experiment gone wrong. Israel doesn't have the economic or political power to punish it's detractors.

By hooking on to the Gay Pride Parade, QuAIA generates more publicity than their cause could ever generate on it's own merits. They alienate people, who have a as much right to be considered part of the community the parade represents. They don't deserve the privilege of participating.

Remembering the Iran Election

Today marks the one year anniversary of the rigged Iranian election. The democratic protests that followed resulted in 60 dead and thousands of arrests. Everyone remembers the video Neda Agha-Soltan who was shot while walking the streets in peaceful protest. To commemorate the anniversary we will look at what the world has done, to condemn the actions of the Iranian governments gross violations of human rights. Below are the complete texts of both the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution and the report by independent international investigation.

UNHRC Resolution

"

"

Independent International Investigation Report

"

"

Happy International Hypocrisy Day!!!

Defending "Peaceful" Violent Resistance

On Monday morning, the Israeli Navy carried out their part in what should have been a well rehearsed script. Free Gaza sent a flotilla to run the Gaza blockade under the cover of a humanitarian mission. Israel's offer to transfer all the aid through the port of Ashdod under the watch of Free Gaza was turned down because it avoided the primary goal of running the blockade. The script was simple. Israel would stop the ships and tow them to Ashdod. The aid would be transferred to Gaza. Free Gaza promised publicly over and over again, that they would abide by their mantra of peaceful resistance.

As dawn approached Israeli commandos armed primarily with paintball guns strapped to their backs, they carried out their part of the script. 5 of the 6 boats cooperated and went off with out a hitch. However the lead boat had decided to change the script. They attempted to kill the soldiers, as they boarded the ship. The soldiers had no choice but to defend themselves, which resulted in the deaths of 9 of the 'peace activists'.

For the first few days Free Gaza claimed that it was not possible that the soldiers were attacked. There was a baby on the ship, plus at the shipped raised the white flag and all activists were trained in non-violent confrontation. When it was proven that the attacks did take place, they should have said the boat was commissioned by the IHH and did not act in accordance with the mission. Instead they have claimed the passengers had a right to attack the soldiers. Israel should have done things differently, they should have landed during the day, they should have sent less soldiers, they should not have been stopped in international waters. Even under attack, the soldiers should not have killed anyone. They can make all the excuses they want but if they had resisted peacefully, as promised, as was done on the other 5 ships nobody would have been hurt. Instead they have declared that IHH is welcome to participate in future flotillas.

As this entire episode was about PR, Free Gaza has won. Israel has rejected, demands from around the world to allow an impartial international investigation into the incident. For those who have already passed judgment this is just further proof that Israel is guilty.

The United States has suggested that Israel appoint a high profile international judge to conduct the investigation. Who would be respected enough by the world, who would consider all the facts before drawing conclusions? The logical choice would be the judge who carried out the independent investigation into the Iran elections. The judge had a lot more to consider. There was vote rigging, demonstrators shot dead in the street, unjustified arrests and beatings all under the watchful eye of the world. There were at least 69 deaths and over 4000 initial arrests. The results of the findings were factual, indisputable and accepted by both sides.

What did you say? There was no investigation. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights addressed the issue on September 14th, 2009.

"The recent elections in Iran and the subsequent protests over the result were a reminder of both the vitality of Iran's civil society and political life, but also of the towering constraints that peaceful activism faces. I call on the Government to release those detained for peaceful protest, to investigate reports of their ill-treatment, and to ensure respect for human rights "

Israeli soldiers kill 9 people, from a mob of 'peaceful' protesters that were trying to kill them. Iran kills 69 people for peacefully marching the streets to protest a rigged election. In one case the UNHRC calls for an internal investigation and the other an international investigation. What could possibly be the mitigating factors that determine who should conduct an investigation?