The CBC, hoist on its own petard

I've written about the BBC's fear -- better to call it terror -- of using the word "terrorist" to describe those who in fact do terrorize by murder and mayhem.

Well, now we have Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC, doing the same or worse, issuing an order to its staff to avoid the word at all cost, unless the writer is attributing to a direct quote from another source where the word was used. Hence, this linguistic madness continues. A number of editorials and commentators have noted the stupidity or the hypocracy of this ridiculous policy. But I want to tell you why the CBC, and Reuter, and the BBC, and other western media are now "hoisted on their own petard". That is to say these institutions are caught in their a trap of their own making.

Initially, there was one motivation for not describing a terrorist attack honestly and precisely, as what it actually was, and thus using the word "terrorism". It happened in relation to Palestinians' attacks on Israeli civilians. The Palestinians were not "terrorists", they were "militants", a word suggesting regular military forces, even though they happened to use youngsters as suicide bombers, didn't wear uniforms, were in no way restrained by such inhibitions as the Geneva Convention, and had no compuctions about killing their own on the way to their objectives. This linguistic fiction was the way these media people were attempting to equate Palestinian mass murderers with Israelis defending against such acts of terrorism. They were trying to tell us all that it was all of a piece, that the instigators were no different than the defenders.

Now then, Muslim terrorists are everywhere and terror attacks are happening not only in Western countries, but also in Muslim countries. Today, more than 80 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in Egypt, by suicide and car bombers. No one can be assured of security from this modern evil viciousness. Additionally, Muslim populations are everywhere in large numbers, as a result of the multicultual theology that was adopted far and wide. Trudeau brought bilingualism and multiculturism to Canada. Bilingualism was right for Canada, and good for Canada, but multiculturalism for a country of immigrants is the best way I know to undermine the concept of patriatism to one's nation. (A discussion about effects of multiculturalism is for another time).

Now the CBC not only is intent on distorting the reality of the Israeli/Palestinian war by the misuse of language, it has to adapt language that maintains an image of Islam as peace-loving, which may or may not be true, and to repeat the mantra that the our Muslim neighbours are not associates of terrorism, which may or may not be true. What we do know for a fact is that all the terrorists are Muslims, while obviously granting that not all Muslims are terrorists. Ultimately, the CBC has to continue the linguistic fiction because it still doesn't want to identify the Palestinians as terrorists, and to be consistent, it is forced to abuse language when terrorists hit London or Spanish or Egyptian innocents. Meanwhile, this policy also allows the media bureaucrats to appease Muslims in their midst and elsewhere, to coddle them with the niceties of distorted words.

Finally, let me say that if the word "terrorism" does not describe the indiscriminate murders we've seen in Israeli pizza parlours, London subways, or Egyptian resorts, etc., then it would be time to eliminate this word from the English language and invent another one that the CBC, Reuters, the BBC, and their ilk, will be prepared to use which would not disguisel the truth. But we have no need to do that. For now, I think the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are understood perfectly well by everyone, and therefore remains a uselful mode for expressing murderous acts and intentions. My suggestion is that whenever we see the CBC and others disguising terrorism with substitute language, we all should simply transpose to the real word, in our minds, or out loud, so that the CBC et. al. can't get away with this nonsense.

Professor Sal

The Truth About "Occupation"

By Dr. Sally Zerker - December 16, 2002

"Occupation," "occupiers," "occupied land": these words are the Palestinians' refrain, repeated incessantly by Palestinian propagandists as justification for their killing of Israeli women, children, old folks, recruits, as well as many visitors to Israel. I think it's time to get it straight, once and for all, about this whole notion of occupation, about who are the occupiers of the land of Israel and the West Bank (more correctly called Judea and Samaria), and who are the occupied.
For a start, it is Jews who are the extant aboriginal people of the territory that includes Israel, Judea and Samaria, and some of present-day Jordan. And it is the Arabs who are the invaders, conquerors and occupiers.

There were Canaanites who inhabited the land before the Jews settled there, but they are long gone. Amazingly, the Jewish people didn't vanish, despite Jew-hatred, pogroms, and massacres of Jews recurring through history. What defines Jewish indigenousness is the consistency of modern Jews with their ancestors of thousands of years ago. They live in a country with the same name as that which existed in 1312 B.C.E. Today's Israelis speak the same language that was spoken by Jews in that land more than 3000 years ago. They chant from the same Bible their ancestors used millennia past. Their Jewish law presently is derived from that found in their Talmud. Their Temple, which was destroyed twice, by invaders, can be archaeologically located in its original site in Jerusalem. And Jerusalem was founded by their biblical King David, which still stands as the centre of Jewish sovereignty, as it did when King David ruled the Jews. In reality, the Jewish people established a distinct civilization in their ancient homeland 3700 years ago, and the roots of that civilization is still much of the source of Jewish life in Israel.

On the other hand, there were no Moslems until 2000 years after Jews had already settled in Israel, because Islam was the religion that Mohammed founded (he died in 632 BCE). And Arabs, who are the ethnic peoples out of the Arabian peninsula, hadn't come to the region through their conquests until after Mohammed's death. No independent Arab or Palestinian state has ever existed in the region, which the Romans renamed Palaestina in the second century, after crushing the last Jewish revolt. When the Arabs did conquer and occupy parts of the land, they did so as occupiers of previously settled territories by Jews.

Well, never mind about ancient history and claims, some might say, what rights have modern Jews to land that had been owned and settled by Arabs, who were recently expelled by Jewish conquest? But here we have yet another set of falsehoods emanating out of a number of misguided assumptions.

First, it is not true that Jewish life was abolished by a series of conquerors - Roman, Arab, Crusaders - over the centuries. Jews retained and rebuilt communities in Jerusalem, Tiberius, Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa, Caesarea, Safed and elsewhere. Years before the Zionist migrations began in the 1870s, Jews lived continuously over time throughout the land of Israel.
Secondly, if one looks at the period when Jews began to immigrate to the region in large numbers in 1882, there were fewer than 250,000 Arabs living in the region, and the majority of these had arrived in recent decades. According to many observers and authorities, the vast majority of the Arab population in the early decades of the twentieth century was comparative newcomers, either late immigrants or descendants of persons who had immigrated into the territory in the previous seventy years. The name Palestine, a throwback to Roman usage, was adopted by the British during their period of mandated authority, in an attempt to blunt the connection of Jews with the land that was historical Israel.

Thirdly, the lands that are usually characterized by the media and other observers as "occupied," that is, those in the West Bank and Gaza, are in no legal sense occupied by Israelis, no more nor less than they are occupied by Palestinians. For example, those residents of the new Palestinian cities (in no sense are they camps), that now house four generations of so-called Palestinian refugees, could be branded as occupiers on the same basis that new Jewish settlements in the West Bank are so designated. The reality is that the West Bank and Gaza lands are unassigned lands, not awarded by the British as they had done with their creation of Jordan and Iraq post-WWI, nor designated by the United Nations which had offered these lands and more to the Palestinians in 1947 (UN Resolution 181, "Partition"), but which the Palestinians rejected.

Fourth, when Palestinians accuse Israel of being "occupiers" of the West Bank and Gaza land, let's examine how these territories came under the control of Israel. It is the direct result of Arab attacks on Israel in 1967: Israel not only repulsed the attacks but managed to overtake areas from which the attacks emanated. To make a comparison, Germany lost a large territory to Poland after the Germans were defeated in World War II, and yet no one now claims that Poland is occupying German land. Israel's position vis-a-vis these conquered lands is consistent with the historical record everywhere, including Canada in relation to Quebec.

Finally, we need to understand the Palestinians' own words and claims. They make no bones about the fact that what they regard as Israeli "occupation" is not merely that of the West Bank and Gaza, but that of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as well. If one wants to look at the "root cause" of a conflict that is by now more than half a century old, it is the refusal by Palestinians and Arabs generally to accept not only the reality of the existence of a Jewish state, which is difficult to deny, but to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as the Jewish homeland. If, and only if, the Arabs finally come to recognize Jewish peoplehood, which includes Jews' right to live as a people among the nations of peoples, will peace be possible between Jews and Arabs.

Dr. Sally Zerker

The BBC"s dreaded "t" word

This week, when London was attacked by Islamic terrorists, the BBC, the British publicly-funded notoriously leftist public broadcaster, actually called it for what it was, four murderous terrorist attacks. But soon regret set in. It re-edited some of its coverage to avoid labelling the killers as "terrorists", and exchanged previously written articles with the word "bombers". In other words, it retro-actively changed its own publications.

Why? Well their guideline said that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements". Nonsense! Of course the BBC is exhibiting value judgements all the time in its choice of language. Avoiding telling the truth is a value judgement. It is a irrefutable fact that the men who carried out the London subway and bus attacks as well as those who assisted them in getting the bombings organized and funded were mass murderers. They intended to be mass murderers. That was their objective, and it was done in order to "terrorize" the society. That is the unadulterated truth. So, when the BBC revises its own copy to "sanitize" its message, the value they are exposing is their desire to conceal the true nature of the perpetrators.

That still doesn't completely answer the question "why". I know why they wouldn't use the "t" word in relation to terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Jews. They wanted their readers and listeners to believe that Palestinians' killing of Jews is justified. They wouldn't openly admit as much, but they had ready excuses for the Palestinian acts; eg. what other weapon do the Palestinians have, Israel is an "occupation", etc. etc. You know the dogma! So, we can understand why the "t" word is bad for the BBC as it relates to Palestinians. Don't misunderstand me. I don't endorse such distortions of meaning. I'm simply explaining the BBC's practice in this regard.

But how come the BBC revised its coverage for the London terrorists? Would it be because they are currying favour with the British Moslem community? If so, they are doing a disservice to Britain and to the world, because the only solution to Islamic terrorism is Islamic cleansing of its own house. Disguising the actual reality of internal Moslem radicalism is harmful to all, including moderate Islam.

Perhaps, the BBC motivation is fear for its reporters. That is not a new situation. Reuters also will not use the dreaded "t" word, apparently because they were intimidated by threats from Palestinian sources. Yet we see reporters now and in the past doing the most dangerous work, often in war fronts, and too often at the cost to reporters' lives. That suggests that if fear is the motivation for the BBC (and Reuters and others) they have lost the mettle that is an essential part of journalism.

All I can say is shame on the BBC.

Ariel Sharon's Motivations

What is motivating Ariel Sharon,the Prime Minister of Israel, to unilaterally and forcefully withdraw Jewish settlers from Gaza? Frankly, I don't understand it.

When Sharon was campaigning during the last election he specifically promised that he wouldn't take unilateral action, in contrast to his Labour Party opponent's position at that time. So, this was not a strategy that for Sharon was a long-held philosophical and strategic belief. As well, in the process, he has undermined the political base of his own Likud party which is now split over his determined withdrawal policy. I know that politics makes strange bed-fellows, especially in Israel, but his alliance with Shimon Peres that ultimately bolsters the Labour party at the expense of his own party is more that strange, it is political suicide.

And there is no doubt in my mind that when Hamas and Palestinian Authority spokemen assert that the pullout from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank is an Israeli surrender due to unrelenting terrorism that they are absolutely right. Why else is this terrible rift in Israeli society taking place, if it were not the case that terrorism has made the cost of maintaining Jews in Gaza too high?

I know some pundits argue that Sharon is doing this to curry favour with George Bush, but although that may be true now after Sharon came up with this proposal, Bush was not instrumental in devising this policy and had no part in its initiation. Others say Sharon used this program as a diversionary tactic to distract from questionable financial dealings that were under consideration for his indictment. Maybe. But that means that the judiciary in Israel is readily compromised. On the contrary, the Israeli judiciary is respected as the least corruptible institution of any.

I'm saying that Sharon's present passion for withdrawal doesn't make sense in the context of who Sharon is, his record as a conservative, his earlier view of the defensive value of settlements, and his political affiliation. Therefore, I ask myself the question I asked about the late Yitzhak Rabin. Is he a traitor, a hero, or a dupe? (In a later blog I will tell you the answer to this question in relation to Rabin.) With regard to Sharon, he's not a traitor. He can and has been reckless, undermined Begin's authority, was unrestrainable in some other military undertakings, but he was decidedly loyal to the country. Not necessarily smart, not necessarily scrupulously honest, but loyal. Is he a dupe, that is, has he been taken in by Palestinian promises that they never meant to honour, offering peace and security in exchange for Israeli concessions? I don't think so! At no time has he shirked from the recognition that the Palestinian war is a terrorist war, and that they can be converted from enemy into partner by the signature on a paper. So is he a hero? No. But I think he'd like to leave a legacy that in the end he did heroic deeds, difficult but worthwhile deeds, making him a potential recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

I wish it will turn out to be true and that Sharon can realize this heroic posture because that would mean that the withdrawal was a successful strategy and that Israel was safer as a result. Only I don't believe that will be the outcome.

On the contrary, I think the withdrawal strenthens the possibilities and determination of the Palestinian terrorist organizations. It makes it less necessary for Mahmoud Abbas to actually do what he has promised but has failed to do, which is to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. And it will give the Europeans more justification for supporting Palestinian terrorism and condemning Israel, which they are wont to do the more that Israel makes concessions. (It doesn't make sense but that's what the Europeans do). All in all, the withdrawal I'm afraid is another instance, like Oslo, of Israeli self-delusion. I would expect this of the left-- and indeed the left is ecstatic -- but where does the Ariel Sharon we used to know come to be the author of such a misdirected policy?

Tony Blair is an Ass

Who would have believed it! The leader of the country that has just been attacked by Islamists, where 50 (+) people are dead and 700 wounded, some critically, is now "understanding" the root cause. "We must" he said, "eradicate poverty and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" in order to deal effectively with this matter (Did he use the media-dreaded word "terrorism" at the time?).

The man is a fool. Doesn't he yet know that terrorism has nothing to do with poverty and that the Moslems could destroy Israel tomorrow, as they dream of doing, and Britain and the rest of the West would not be safe? Blair's delusion must come from his leftist connections with the British Labour Party, otherwise you would think he'd know better.

The democratic Western world is under attack by Islamists who are determined to do what was done in the eighth century by Islam, that is, dominate the world through their organized violence. The only answer to Islamic terrorism is when Moslems in massive numbers -- not just a lone voice in the wilderness here and there -- decide that they are indeed good citizens of the democratic countries that have taken them in and they do what good citizens do, that is, help authorities catch these Islamic criminals in their midst. Moreover, they have an obligation to see to it that their religious leaders stop being the fomenters of hate. If they can't fire Imams who preach hate, they can stop attending their sermons. We all await the evidence of the supposedly majority law-loving Moslems in our countries by their actions, not by their words when the death of their fellow citizens has already occurred.

Professor Sal

How terrorism could have been and can be prevented

This morning we all woke up to the horrible news about the terrorist attacks on London's subway and bus system. Dozens of innocents have died and hundreds have been wounded. It is a reminder of that terrible day on 9/11 when the US was attacked in New York. At that time I wrote a letter to a number of editors, a bitter letter I must say, which should have had the title "First the Jews and then You". No one wanted to publish it, apparently. Yet, it tells the painful truth.

I am convinced that the only real retardant to terrorism is moral outrage from every corner of the civilized world, from politicians, academics, professionals, workers, union leaders, religious leaders of every stripe, male and female, in other words, civilized society . When the left makes rationalizations and excuses for the murderers, eg. that they are hard done by (in one way or another), that they are "freedom fighters" not really killers, or when the leftist media won't use the word terrorism as it rightly applies to Palestinian murderers, all of this (and more) creates an environment in which terrorism flourishes and finds support. You can't stop every suicide bomber, but if his or her society sees it for the evil it is, and will not condone or tolerate his/her actions, and exposes the evil doers, then this becomes a real restraint. Try to think back to a time when people were appalled and astonished that anyone would have the audacity to take "credit" for mass murder. I remember when that was the climate of opinion. But my letter tells you why and when that changed. My letter is really the subject of this blog. See below.

September 11, 2001.
The Editor,

Dear Sir;

On this black day for America and for all of the civilized world, I want to remind that world that Western leaders, past and present, are culpable, just as they were culpable leading up to the second World War.

I heard Prime Minister Tony Blair say at his press conference today (09/11/01) that the nations of the world have to eradicate international terrorism. Now, he thinks it necessary. But, when terrorists were hijacking El Al planes, it obviously wasn't necessary, because it was only Jews who were killed or endangered. When Palestinian terrorists were killing Jewish athletes or school children, or were bombing the Jewish center in Buenos Aires , it wasn't necessary to eradicate terrorism because the victims were all Jews. And when Palestinians send in suicide bombers almost daily to kill Israeli kids at pizza parlors or night clubs, that's not a good enough reason to worry about global terrorism. Those killed or maimed are all Jews, so let's not get too provoked.

But the world should have learned its lesson. First they kill Jews, then they kill you. Tragically, the world leaders seem to be very weak on history, so they did nothing as long as it was only Jews who were the targets of terrorism.

Just as the millions of human deaths during WW II might never have happened had Western leaders been incensed by the evil perpetrated against Jews by Hitler, and had acted precipitously instead of trying to appease him, so could the innocents of today have been saved from their horrible deaths had the world's leaders taken seriously the earlier terrorist attacks against Jews.

Sincerely,

Professor Sally F. Zerker.

the end of feminism

Whenever I see a group of boys and girls walking down the street, congregating near their school, having fun together, I know that the concept of feminism is dead. How do I know that? Because clothes always reveals the inner values. And the clothes the girls wear are so minimal they are designed to cover up as little as possible of the body and still be acceptable in school or a restaurant, while the boys clothes hide every vestage of their shapes and sizes through the baggiest pants and shirts etc imaginable, never actually seemingly to contact their body parts. Now feminism was about women becoming whole human beings, not primarily sexual objects for men's pleasure. Of course it was about other issues as well, but it is a key element of feminism that the stress on female sexuality is put aside in order for her creative and productive capabilities to come to the foreground. If the boys were also dressing half-naked, like the girls, I'd say, well perhaps all this is about is the pleasure of exposing bodies to light and air. But it is only the girls who expose their navels, breast, butts, etc. not the boys as well. The message to me is that this young generation has no conception of the essence of feminism, and that sexual beings in relation to their male counterparts is how they see themselve. I know this view of women has been promoted by female celebrities, which is accepted and taken as the norm, which only confirms my assertion that feminism, ie.,the rethinking and revaluing the place of women in society, is either a lost cause already, or is in the dying throes.

Canada's bad political system

So often we're told by our teachers and the media that the Canadian parliamentary system is far superior to the American's. Nonsense! What we have in Canada when there's a majority in Parliament is a Prime Ministerial dictatorship. Our last PM, Chretien, ran the country like his private fiefdom. He never consulted the backbenchers, and even his cabinet was left out of major and some minor decision-making. (At this point I don't want to discuss minority government in Canada, that's for another blog). That means that we elect representatives who have no voices, and there's nothing within our constitution that requires that the PM give consideration to their opinion. On the contrary, if any Member dares to vote against the government's bills, he or she is thrown out of the caucus. The concentration of power in the hand of the Prime Minister in Canada is like that of a dictator in a banana republic. The only cause for his concern would be the next election, but given the hold that the Liberals have on Ontario (stupid Ontarians!) the PM does pretty much as he pleases. He can choose his own cabinet (no need for a senatorial ok as in the US), he chooses judges (no review by any judicial or independent body), he can dismiss senior civil servants as he likes, he can keep all government matters secret, unlike a US president, and much much more power is in our PM's hands.

By contrast, in the US at the present time, all three branches of government are controlled by the Republicans. But if you've been following the events there lately, you discover that the Democrats nevertheless have been able to stymie President Bush on judicial nominations. And some Republican senators have gone along with the Democrats, and are still in the good graces of the party. What that indicates is that there is a level of democracy in the US that is totally absent for Canada and Canadians.

There's no doubt in my mind that our system of government is not a healthy democracy. Not all parliamentary democracies are as dangerous as ours. When the British Conservative members of parliament were unhappy with Thatcher, they threw her out as PM. It didn't require an election or a leadership conference. They acted on their democratic impulses as elected representatives. And lots of other countries have similar systems but their chief executive is elected directly by the people, which in itself imposes some caution on that individual and office. Every Canadian should carefully consider how he or she votes in order to put some serious limitation on the power of the Prime Minister. Which brings me to the subject of minority goverments in Canada. That's coming up soon.

A Start

This blog will address issues, myths and facts. The problem of our time is that much of what we read and hear in the media is distortions or outright falsehoods. Often it is not the intention of the reporter or editor to deceive, but too often they operate on rote journalism and reporting. That is, there is a modern myth operative, and they don't question if it's true or not. It becomes the accepted norm, and that's that. However, this blog is not simply about challenging the media, it is about thinking from a fresh start. I look forward to presenting interesting and challenging ideas and exchanges with others of a like mind.
Professor Sal