My interview with Joel C. Rosenberg was published in the The Jerusalem Post early last month. Hope you enjoy it! Be sure to read the full-length interview located here on my blog.
"Blessing Israel, come what may" - Robert D. Onley - The Jeruslaem Post - Oct. 2, 2010
http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=189881
- R.O.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Israel's Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon in Q&A session with Joel C. Rosenberg - Part 2
Israel's Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon in Q&A session with Joel C. Rosenberg
Part 2
Part 1 of the video will be re-uploaded soon.
Thanks for watching World Assessor. - R.O.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
"Hamas supporters celebrate news of West Bank attack which killed four Israelis"
Today four Israeli citizens were gunned down in cold blood by Hamas terrorists. Upon hearing about this, "Hamas supporters in the Gaza Strip celebrated news of the West Bank attack." This line sums up the entire Israel-Palestine problem. To literally celebrate the death of fellow human beings - what a truly disturbing, twisted and condemnably brain-washed reality for Hamas' supporters. Read the story here.
Israel is expected to make compromises during negotiations over the next year to finally achieve a peace agreement. How can Israel even negotiate with the "Palestinians" when one half of the Palestinian equation - Hamas - literally cheers the death of Israelis? Is this not explicitly indicative of Hamas' stated goal, which is not a Palestinian State, but rather the death of the Jewish State?
What an utterly despicable entity, Hamas, so virulently hate-filled and demonic so as to cheer the death of other human beings. Israel has every right to pursue these Hamas militants and bring them to swift, unrelenting justice.
Remember that Israel's goal is not the death of Palestinians. No Israeli government has ever advocated the death of anyone. Israel simply wants to exist. In the Middle East. In the land of their ancient forefathers. Where is the global outcry over Israeli blood spilled by Hamas? What hypocrisy.
| Four Israelis shot down by terrorists in the West Bank. (JPost) |
What an utterly despicable entity, Hamas, so virulently hate-filled and demonic so as to cheer the death of other human beings. Israel has every right to pursue these Hamas militants and bring them to swift, unrelenting justice.
Remember that Israel's goal is not the death of Palestinians. No Israeli government has ever advocated the death of anyone. Israel simply wants to exist. In the Middle East. In the land of their ancient forefathers. Where is the global outcry over Israeli blood spilled by Hamas? What hypocrisy.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Pictures from Juno Beach, Normandy, France
On June 6, 1944, over 14,000 young Canadian soldiers stormed ashore at Juno Beach, launching the D-Day invasion of France which would eventually liberate Europe from the tyranny, murder and occupation of Nazi Germany. In late May 2010, I had the opportunity to visit Juno Beach to write a feature piece for the Windsor Star on the occasion of the 66th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. On this beach 369 Canadian soldiers lost their lives. These are some of the pictures I took that day.
Pictures from my visit to Juno Beach, May 2010
Accompanying article: "Enduring sacrifices at Juno Beach" by Robert D. Onley
Pictures from my visit to Juno Beach, May 2010
Accompanying article: "Enduring sacrifices at Juno Beach" by Robert D. Onley
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Why Is It 'Bigoted' to Criticize Religion?
A great article from Real Clear Politics about the controversial debate that has emerged surrounding the 'mosque/recreational centre' proposed to be built near Ground Zero. - R.O.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 18, 2010
Why Is It 'Bigoted' to Criticize Religion?
By David Harsanyi
When it comes to the proposed Islamic center near ground zero, I subscribe to President Barack Obama's position: "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."
But that's old news. Today the debate is the debate. And this debate is far more consequential.
There are those who continue to make the facile claim that any protest over Park51 is a display in un-American intolerance and contempt for the Constitution. This position treats criticism of faith -- religious institutions and symbols included -- as tantamount to "bigotry."
Given that there remains overwhelming opposition to the ground zero mosque, this viewpoint would mean that 70 percent of Americans are impulsively hostile to freedom of religion and irrationally narrow-minded.
Could be. Or maybe a few of these folks believe the First Amendment features more than one clause. Even a newfound reverence for religious liberty on the left does not negate our right to protest and criticize the philosophical disposition of others. And applying public pressure in an effort to shut down a project is as American as protesting the arrival of a new Walmart. Religious institutions, as far as I can tell, are not exempted from these disputes.
In 2008, thousands of gay rights activists protested the Mormon temple in Westwood, Calif., for its role in passing Proposition 8 -- the ban on same-sex marriage. This grew into a national protest to undermine the influence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- even though not every Mormon was involved.
I don't recall anti-Mormon protesters being referred to as bigots for targeting religion; it appeared to be just the opposite, in fact. And if I am offended by aspects of Mormon theology, why not voice those concerns? Put it this way: If Mormons proposed the erection of a 13-story community center in West Hollywood or the West Village, I would be happy to join the outcry of protest.
Though only a fraction of Catholic priests are pedophiles, the entire Roman Catholic Church is routinely broad-brushed as corrupt and depraved. I've not heard those who make generalizations about Catholicism referred to as bigots in Time magazine. Nor have I heard those who regularly disparage evangelicals called intolerant.
These groups inject themselves into political and cultural disputes of the day -- as they have every right to do -- so they become fair game. And by building the Islamic center near ground zero, the backers of Park51 insert themselves in a broader political conversation.
As a person with a libertarian political temperament, I would loathe to see government shut down religious expression. As an atheist, I am distrustful of religion's influence on that freedom. But in the end, one is a discussion about the role of government in society and the other is a discussion about civilization. Few people in this debate make that distinction.
As we know, only a fraction of Muslims are radicalized to violence. Most Muslims are peaceful -- free to practice their religion unencumbered. All of this is indisputable. Prospectively speaking, unlike many other faiths, ideological Islam has a poor track record of compatibility with liberal ideals. Surely, that's worth a discussion in a free society. Or is it a case of intolerance to bring it up?
I've read numerous columns claiming that "allowing" a mosque to be built near ground zero is proof of our tolerant goodness. To be certain. But surely our ability to conduct a peaceful debate over the meaning of institutions, including religious ones, is also a reflection of that greatness.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Read this article on RCP here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/18/why_is_it_bigoted_to_criticize_religion_106797.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 18, 2010
Why Is It 'Bigoted' to Criticize Religion?
By David Harsanyi
When it comes to the proposed Islamic center near ground zero, I subscribe to President Barack Obama's position: "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."
But that's old news. Today the debate is the debate. And this debate is far more consequential.
There are those who continue to make the facile claim that any protest over Park51 is a display in un-American intolerance and contempt for the Constitution. This position treats criticism of faith -- religious institutions and symbols included -- as tantamount to "bigotry."
Given that there remains overwhelming opposition to the ground zero mosque, this viewpoint would mean that 70 percent of Americans are impulsively hostile to freedom of religion and irrationally narrow-minded.
Could be. Or maybe a few of these folks believe the First Amendment features more than one clause. Even a newfound reverence for religious liberty on the left does not negate our right to protest and criticize the philosophical disposition of others. And applying public pressure in an effort to shut down a project is as American as protesting the arrival of a new Walmart. Religious institutions, as far as I can tell, are not exempted from these disputes.
In 2008, thousands of gay rights activists protested the Mormon temple in Westwood, Calif., for its role in passing Proposition 8 -- the ban on same-sex marriage. This grew into a national protest to undermine the influence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- even though not every Mormon was involved.
I don't recall anti-Mormon protesters being referred to as bigots for targeting religion; it appeared to be just the opposite, in fact. And if I am offended by aspects of Mormon theology, why not voice those concerns? Put it this way: If Mormons proposed the erection of a 13-story community center in West Hollywood or the West Village, I would be happy to join the outcry of protest.
Though only a fraction of Catholic priests are pedophiles, the entire Roman Catholic Church is routinely broad-brushed as corrupt and depraved. I've not heard those who make generalizations about Catholicism referred to as bigots in Time magazine. Nor have I heard those who regularly disparage evangelicals called intolerant.
These groups inject themselves into political and cultural disputes of the day -- as they have every right to do -- so they become fair game. And by building the Islamic center near ground zero, the backers of Park51 insert themselves in a broader political conversation.
As a person with a libertarian political temperament, I would loathe to see government shut down religious expression. As an atheist, I am distrustful of religion's influence on that freedom. But in the end, one is a discussion about the role of government in society and the other is a discussion about civilization. Few people in this debate make that distinction.
As we know, only a fraction of Muslims are radicalized to violence. Most Muslims are peaceful -- free to practice their religion unencumbered. All of this is indisputable. Prospectively speaking, unlike many other faiths, ideological Islam has a poor track record of compatibility with liberal ideals. Surely, that's worth a discussion in a free society. Or is it a case of intolerance to bring it up?
I've read numerous columns claiming that "allowing" a mosque to be built near ground zero is proof of our tolerant goodness. To be certain. But surely our ability to conduct a peaceful debate over the meaning of institutions, including religious ones, is also a reflection of that greatness.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Read this article on RCP here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/18/why_is_it_bigoted_to_criticize_religion_106797.html
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Netanyahu's Warning
Writing in Jerusalem, the Washington Post's George F. Will provides a compelling examination of the threats to Israel's existence today as perceived by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his article "Netanyahu's Warning". Will takes readers on a very brief journey through Israel's tumultuous struggle for existence and concludes with a profoundly unnerving assessment that "If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned."
As Iran is set this week to launch its first nuclear reactor at the Bushehr power plant with the help of Russian engineers, Will's article is both timely and perceptive. It is unlikely that Israel would undertake air strikes to stop the launch, as the nuclear site itself is likely an entirely peaceful enterprise. Iran would not be so stupid as to hide any military applications of its nuclear technology inside this location, one which has undergone rigorous IAEA scrutiny.
Of course it is the numerous other nuclear research sites, scattered throughout Iran, many buried deep underground, which provide the substance for Will's ominous title, "Netanyahu's Warning", no doubt implicitly directed at the Iranian leadership.
One must not forget that the Washington Post is arguably one of the pre-eminent American newspapers internationally, alongside the New York Times. If there were any paper to be actively observed by the Iranian leadership, the Washington Post is certainly one of them.
Thus an article such as this, emerging likely from an interview with Netanyahu, serves two important purposes: First, is clearly to remind the Iranian Regime that Israel means what it says about stopping Iran's nuclear program. Second, is to send a strong signal to the Obama administration to ratchet up its own efforts to halt Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, or else Israel will take the matter into its own hands, on its own watch.
Nothing could be more politically and internationally destabilizing for President Obama than for Israel to unilaterally bomb Iran's nuclear facilities some time before this November's mid-term Congressional elections. An Israeli strike could spin the sputtering global economy into a tail-slide on the back of skyrocketing oil prices. The American voter would likely blame Obama for both failing to press Iran hard enough and for failing to persuade Israel not to act alone.
So what might Obama do with Netanyahu's warning? Surely this warning is not the first iteration of the Israeli government's fears and intentions toward Iran. Obama is well aware of Israel's intensive pre-occupation with Iranian nukes. What is disturbing however, is that Obama appears unwilling to either publicly assuage Israel's fears, or to call Iran to heel for its international disobedience and dishonesty. Netanyahu is left to make his case in American newspapers so that the American populace at least tacitly understands what may soon transpire.
In what is an increasingly shrinking time frame, Will says that Netanyahu may decide to undertake targeted air strikes against Iran "within two years." Diplomatically, this does not leave much more time for Obama to bring Iran to the table, nail the Iranians to their seats, and force a peaceful resolution to this nuclear stand-off. For years the Iranians have been playing a deceitful game of diplomatic chess, both with the Americans and the rest of the P5+1, throughout negotiations over its nuclear program. But tiny Israel has not blinked for a second, it's eyes firmly fixated on Iran's growing stockpile of enriched uranium and ongoing construction of yet more underground nuclear military facilities.
The West long ago called the Islamic Republic's bluff when Iran's secret underground uranium enrichment at Qom was revealed last September. The West knows Iran is building nuclear weapons. The question is whether the West has the guts to do anything to stop Iran from completing the development of their very own Persian Bomb.
For Israel, and for Netanyahu, the question is not if they will stop Iran, but when. For Obama, this looming reality should keep him up at night.
"Netanyahu's Warning" : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304474.html
As Iran is set this week to launch its first nuclear reactor at the Bushehr power plant with the help of Russian engineers, Will's article is both timely and perceptive. It is unlikely that Israel would undertake air strikes to stop the launch, as the nuclear site itself is likely an entirely peaceful enterprise. Iran would not be so stupid as to hide any military applications of its nuclear technology inside this location, one which has undergone rigorous IAEA scrutiny.
Of course it is the numerous other nuclear research sites, scattered throughout Iran, many buried deep underground, which provide the substance for Will's ominous title, "Netanyahu's Warning", no doubt implicitly directed at the Iranian leadership.
One must not forget that the Washington Post is arguably one of the pre-eminent American newspapers internationally, alongside the New York Times. If there were any paper to be actively observed by the Iranian leadership, the Washington Post is certainly one of them.
Thus an article such as this, emerging likely from an interview with Netanyahu, serves two important purposes: First, is clearly to remind the Iranian Regime that Israel means what it says about stopping Iran's nuclear program. Second, is to send a strong signal to the Obama administration to ratchet up its own efforts to halt Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, or else Israel will take the matter into its own hands, on its own watch.
Nothing could be more politically and internationally destabilizing for President Obama than for Israel to unilaterally bomb Iran's nuclear facilities some time before this November's mid-term Congressional elections. An Israeli strike could spin the sputtering global economy into a tail-slide on the back of skyrocketing oil prices. The American voter would likely blame Obama for both failing to press Iran hard enough and for failing to persuade Israel not to act alone.
So what might Obama do with Netanyahu's warning? Surely this warning is not the first iteration of the Israeli government's fears and intentions toward Iran. Obama is well aware of Israel's intensive pre-occupation with Iranian nukes. What is disturbing however, is that Obama appears unwilling to either publicly assuage Israel's fears, or to call Iran to heel for its international disobedience and dishonesty. Netanyahu is left to make his case in American newspapers so that the American populace at least tacitly understands what may soon transpire.
In what is an increasingly shrinking time frame, Will says that Netanyahu may decide to undertake targeted air strikes against Iran "within two years." Diplomatically, this does not leave much more time for Obama to bring Iran to the table, nail the Iranians to their seats, and force a peaceful resolution to this nuclear stand-off. For years the Iranians have been playing a deceitful game of diplomatic chess, both with the Americans and the rest of the P5+1, throughout negotiations over its nuclear program. But tiny Israel has not blinked for a second, it's eyes firmly fixated on Iran's growing stockpile of enriched uranium and ongoing construction of yet more underground nuclear military facilities.
The West long ago called the Islamic Republic's bluff when Iran's secret underground uranium enrichment at Qom was revealed last September. The West knows Iran is building nuclear weapons. The question is whether the West has the guts to do anything to stop Iran from completing the development of their very own Persian Bomb.
For Israel, and for Netanyahu, the question is not if they will stop Iran, but when. For Obama, this looming reality should keep him up at night.
"Netanyahu's Warning" : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304474.html
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Is Israel about to unilaterally bomb Iran?
Two leading articles seem to suggest so.
The Atlantic Magazine has just published a long and detailed piece on the Iranian nuclear crisis, exploring in great depth exactly what an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities might look like. Click here to read "The Point of No Return".
The very fact that a magazine is running such an article should be worrying. Israel's rumoured preparations for a strike suggest the Obama administration has (at some level) told the Israelis that the United States will not stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or at the very least, that the U.S. will not conduct air strikes to do so.
It is tragic that Israel will potentially feel it necessary to undertake such an incredibly risk-fraught mission unilaterally. The United States has always been Israel's strongest ally. In the face of Iranian intransigence and blatant deception throughout the course of negotiations on their covert nuclear program, one would think President Obama would show resolve and stand with Israel given the threat of Iran going nuclear practically any day now.
Of course Israel's greatest fear is not that Iran would be stupid enough to launch a nuclear missile at Israel, but that Iran might supply a crude nuclear device either to Hizbullah (it's proxy army in Lebanon) or Hamas (in Gaza), or even worse, to Iranian supported terrorists inside Israel. Such a crude nuke (think: pick-up truck dirty bomb) could obliterate Tel Aviv and create a nuclear wasteland with horrific consequences for both Israelis and Arabs.
But for Israel to decide to fly all the way to Iran and attempt to destroy nuclear facilities buried deep underground is arguably the single most significant decision the tiny nation will ever make. The international repercussions will be devastating for Israel, there is no question of that.
Israel's leaders are balancing two unbelievably fateful contingencies: do they allow Iran to go nuclear, hope that their deterrent capability keeps Iran at bay, and pray that Iran never supplies terrorists with dirty nuclear weapons? Or do they perform an incredibly dangerous, unpopular and globally-damaging unilateral mission to prevent Iran (and her terrorist proxies) from acquiring the very weapons that could literally wipe Israel off the map?
Today the Israeli paper Haaretz tackled this question in an excellent piece, "The Morning after the Attack on Iran". The article briefly summarizes the enormity of the present situation, the timing and the ramifications for Israel immediately after it attacks Iran.
These are perilous and incredible times, to say the least. We need to pray for Israeli and American leaders, that they will make the correct decision, that they will be wise and focused. We must also pray for the leaders of Iran, for the Islamic Regime to come clean about its nuclear weapons program, to return to sanity and join the rest of the international community in productive, transparent negotiations. Because the alternative is downright frightening - not just for Israel, but for the rest of the world.
The Atlantic Magazine has just published a long and detailed piece on the Iranian nuclear crisis, exploring in great depth exactly what an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities might look like. Click here to read "The Point of No Return".
The very fact that a magazine is running such an article should be worrying. Israel's rumoured preparations for a strike suggest the Obama administration has (at some level) told the Israelis that the United States will not stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or at the very least, that the U.S. will not conduct air strikes to do so.
It is tragic that Israel will potentially feel it necessary to undertake such an incredibly risk-fraught mission unilaterally. The United States has always been Israel's strongest ally. In the face of Iranian intransigence and blatant deception throughout the course of negotiations on their covert nuclear program, one would think President Obama would show resolve and stand with Israel given the threat of Iran going nuclear practically any day now.
Of course Israel's greatest fear is not that Iran would be stupid enough to launch a nuclear missile at Israel, but that Iran might supply a crude nuclear device either to Hizbullah (it's proxy army in Lebanon) or Hamas (in Gaza), or even worse, to Iranian supported terrorists inside Israel. Such a crude nuke (think: pick-up truck dirty bomb) could obliterate Tel Aviv and create a nuclear wasteland with horrific consequences for both Israelis and Arabs.
But for Israel to decide to fly all the way to Iran and attempt to destroy nuclear facilities buried deep underground is arguably the single most significant decision the tiny nation will ever make. The international repercussions will be devastating for Israel, there is no question of that.
Israel's leaders are balancing two unbelievably fateful contingencies: do they allow Iran to go nuclear, hope that their deterrent capability keeps Iran at bay, and pray that Iran never supplies terrorists with dirty nuclear weapons? Or do they perform an incredibly dangerous, unpopular and globally-damaging unilateral mission to prevent Iran (and her terrorist proxies) from acquiring the very weapons that could literally wipe Israel off the map?
Today the Israeli paper Haaretz tackled this question in an excellent piece, "The Morning after the Attack on Iran". The article briefly summarizes the enormity of the present situation, the timing and the ramifications for Israel immediately after it attacks Iran.
These are perilous and incredible times, to say the least. We need to pray for Israeli and American leaders, that they will make the correct decision, that they will be wise and focused. We must also pray for the leaders of Iran, for the Islamic Regime to come clean about its nuclear weapons program, to return to sanity and join the rest of the international community in productive, transparent negotiations. Because the alternative is downright frightening - not just for Israel, but for the rest of the world.
JPOST: 'Iran to give Hizbullah weapons'
Surprise, surprise: Iran is equipping Israel's enemy Hizbullah. Since the 2006 Second Lebanon War, when Israel fought Hizbullah after Israel soldiers were abducted by Hizbullah fighters near the border, Iran has consistently and openly supplying Hizbullah with advanced weaponry in defiance of numerous UN resolutions.
Today the Jerusalem Post reports an Italian story, which states that Turkey will "send sophisticated weapons, rockets and guns to Syria, that will end up in Lebanon," where the Iranian Army will ensure the weapons are transferred to Hizbullah.
Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards "will facilitate the transition, ensure safety, watch loads on the routes, and provide support to the border," the report said.
Iran is blatantly equipping Israel's enemies in order to punish Israel in the event Israel takes pre-emptive action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Hizbullah, an Iranian-Syrian proxy, is welcoming the weapons and assistance after the 2006 war which severely depleted Hizbullah's munitions stores.
All of which will only increase tensions and increase the likelihood that Israel and Hizbullah will engage in hostilities once again, particularly following the border clash a week ago that left 5 dead.
This story is not news to anyone following the situation in recent years, but proves once more than Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, as recently reported by the U.S. State Department.
In light of Iran's perpetual shenanigans, does anyone need any more reason to not let Iran obtain nuclear weapons?
Read the JPost story here: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=184538
Today the Jerusalem Post reports an Italian story, which states that Turkey will "send sophisticated weapons, rockets and guns to Syria, that will end up in Lebanon," where the Iranian Army will ensure the weapons are transferred to Hizbullah.
Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards "will facilitate the transition, ensure safety, watch loads on the routes, and provide support to the border," the report said.
Iran is blatantly equipping Israel's enemies in order to punish Israel in the event Israel takes pre-emptive action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Hizbullah, an Iranian-Syrian proxy, is welcoming the weapons and assistance after the 2006 war which severely depleted Hizbullah's munitions stores.
All of which will only increase tensions and increase the likelihood that Israel and Hizbullah will engage in hostilities once again, particularly following the border clash a week ago that left 5 dead.
This story is not news to anyone following the situation in recent years, but proves once more than Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, as recently reported by the U.S. State Department.
In light of Iran's perpetual shenanigans, does anyone need any more reason to not let Iran obtain nuclear weapons?
Read the JPost story here: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=184538
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Happy Ramadan
Happy Ramadan to all Muslims! Here is a special greeting from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wishing a Happy Ramadan and asking for support to achieve Peace in the Middle East.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Full transcript of my interview with Joel C. Rosenberg at the 2010 Epicenter Conference
On June 25, 2010, I had the opportunity to sit down with American New York Times Bestselling-author Joel C. Rosenberg, to talk about the current situation in the Middle East involving Israel, Iran and the rest of the world. What follows is the complete transcript of my interview with Mr. Rosenberg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert: These are amazing and incredible times.
Robert: In your novel The Ezekiel Option, one of your character’s is hesitant to reveal details to the President about the prophetic War of Gog and Magog. How familiar, if at all, do you believe President Obama, or anyone in the US administration is with potential prophetic impacts on current events as they’re unfolding today?
Robert: There’s a significant movement in Ottawa to support Israel, we’re not willing to step on the world stage and join the bandwagon ostracizing Israel. Could you comment briefly on the significance of a nation like Canada, a large resource-rich country, supporting Israel both now and into the future, particularly if the War of Gog and Magog were to occur soon.
Joel Rosenberg: Thank you!
With special thanks to my friend Derek Sawyer for the interview photographs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert: Your next novel, to be released next October, is called The Twelfth Imam. It’s named after the Islamic Messiah. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is arguably the only global leader on record as being publicly committed to hastening the return of the Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi, and bringing about the end of the world. Can you explain the implications of Ahmadinejad’s belief in this Twelfth Imam, particularly with respect to Israel?
Joel Rosenberg: Ahmadinejad is a devout Shia Muslim. He is absolutely a true believer in every sense of the term. Religion for him is not some sort of political force, or has political implications. But he believes that the end of the world is at hand. He believes that the Islamic Messiah, known as the Twelfth Imam is coming soon, he says “imminently” and believes that the way to hasten the coming of this Twelfth Imam, is to annihilate two countries: Israel, which he calls the Little Satan, and the United States, which he calls the Great Satan. He is on record on this, I document his life, teachings on this topic, not a full biography, in my book, Inside the Revolution.
He [Ahmadinejad] is clear, he gets a little fuzzy in terms of making the “destruction of the US” a consistent linkage in his public statements, he has certainly made enough statements that you understand the totality of what he is saying. And then he has been very clear about annihilating the US, saying “the end of the US is coming soon” and he said this a couple weeks ago.
So, the implications are two-fold: 1. If you don’t understand what’s driving him, then it’s impossible to know how to deal with him. Meaning the world, particularly the US is trying to negotiate with him, or at least start, he [Ahmadinejad] won’t even sit down and talk. And the US and UN, EU, are trying to figure out “How do we get these talks started?” “How do we really engage this guy? What does he want?”
If you ask what he wants, and you don’t study who he is, you’re going to come up with erroneous conclusions. What he wants is his Messiah to come, and what he believes has to happen is to destroy Judeo-Christian civilization to get there. Period. Once you understand that, then you know that negotiations will be fruitless.
I can’t say that sanctions will necessarily be fruitless, but again, sanctions are designed to put pressure on a country or regime to change their course. But for him [Ahmadinejad], if he changes course, the implications are not that he wins another election, or that he loses another election, but that he thinks he goes to Hell forever and ever and ever. This is the fundamental flaw that the world leadership is making, is that they’re not sitting down and carefully analyzing who this man is, what he believes and the implications of those beliefs.
The implications are that he wants to bring about the end of humanity as we know it. And if he gets these weapons, he will use them. And he’s backed up by the Supreme Leader in the Ayatollah Khamenei who believes the exact same thing. We notice this, because Khomeini supported his re-election, rigged the election, when he easily could have given it to Mousavi or somebody else, but he didn’t. This tells us, among other clues, that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are two peas in a pod, they’re incredibly dangerous, and the world pretty much doesn’t get it. The only one who does is Netanyahu.
I’m not sure, but maybe Prime Minister Stephen Harper understands the theological implications, but he’s certainly standing with Israel, and I want to go over, but in advance say that the Canadian Prime Minister is now the most Pro-Israel leader on the planet and we are very, very grateful for him.
Robert: Even though the media is largely secular, why do they give Ahmadinejad a free pass, why haven’t they picked up on his apocalyptic beliefs?
Joel Rosenberg: Generally the secular, Western media only is troubled by someone in religion only if they’re an evangelical Christian. If you’re a radical Muslim, then “Oh you must have something interesting to know that we should be deferential.” And honestly there’s a lot of other stories to cover. So they just don’t focus [on Ahmadinejad’s beliefs].
Robert: As the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program have progressed, we’ve seen the Iranian leadership essentially “flip-flop”, one day supporting the exporting of enriched uranium, and the second day not. Some commentators have linked this to the Shia Islamic doctrine of taqiyya which essentially allows or permits Muslims to deceive “infidels” in order to conceal their true belief. Could you comment on how the doctrine of taqiyya is potentially affecting dialogue with Iran?
Joel Rosenberg: Well I think that taqiyya is affecting the dynamic of dialogue with Iran. It is part of this lack of understanding, almost a wilful lack of understanding on the part of the US, European and other officials, they just don’t understand how Ahmadinejad’s brand of Islam, which is not shared by everybody but certainly shared by them, how it affects them [the US]. There are so many of these elements, whether it’s eschatology, or this issue of taqiyya, or other elements.
For example, if you believe that your only guarantee of salvation, of guaranteeing going to Heaven, is martyrdom, then what incentive do you have not to become a martyr. The incentives are all on the side of “I want to die and take a lot of people with me.”
That’s why it’s tough to stop a suicide bomber, because your normal incentives [you use when you] try to talk the sniper, or hostage taker, “Don’t you want to live? It’s going to be difficult, but you don’t want to be shot.” You’re appealing to the person’s desire to want to live. If the person does not want to live, what exactly are you appealing to? This is what is flummoxing much of international diplomacy/diplomats.
Robert: Do you believe the US administration is even aware of taqiyya in negotiations with Iran, or when formulating policy towards Iran?
Joel Rosenberg: Aware, yea, they're all bright people. Paying attention to it? Assessing: is what I’m getting what they want me to think because they don’t really plan. No. Clearly, the West is buying the notion that Iran wants to engage, we just haven’t found the key to the door, so we’re flipping through all our key rings thinking, “Which key will open the door?”
All of the evidence tells us, you don’t need a PhD in this, all of the evidence tells us they [the Iranians] don’t want to negotiate. The question is: why? And if you understand that what they're saying is: because we want the world to end, and the only reason we would even be having a conversation with the rest of the world, or even feigning interest in diplomacy, is because we need to buy time to build these weapons, and that’s the fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.
Robert: Fundamental deception on the part of the Iranian regime.
Joel Rosenberg: Yes, the problem is, when somebody tells you, “I’m cheating at cards.” That’s my doctrine, I cheat, now let’s play poker. You think, “Maybe I shouldn’t be playing poker with you. Maybe I should take all your cards away. And the gun in your pocket, and the gun in your room behind you that you’re building. Why are we playing poker with people who tell us in their own documents that they cheat?
Robert: You touched on this before, but on the surface it seems that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees through Ahmadinejad’s antics, and has repeatedly stated that he’s prepared to defend itself against the Iranian nuclear threat. How do you believe Netanyahu perceives Ahmadinejad’s threats and posturing, particularly given that you had worked for Netanyahu?
Joel Rosenberg: I think that Netanyahu believes that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei mean what they say. He continues to be bewildered, to put it mildly, at how nobody else sees this. I think that he’s coming to the conclusion that nobody is going to see the world, and see Iran, the way that he does, and this is leading him to a very lonely place, and he’s going to have to make a decision, probably not in years, but probably measuring this in months, before he has to decide to launch a pre-emptive war. I can’t tell you that he will, but there’s an enormous amount of pressure on him. And look at…
Here’s one of the markers that I’ll be talking about in this conference, which is: when you look at the ferocity of international reactions against Israel defending its own borders, by boarding a ship, now think about what the world’s reaction will be if Israel sends 400 planes to attack Iran.
We now know that the world will go crazy, and Netanyahu sees this. And he’s got to make decisions. We need to be praying for him, as followers of Jesus Christ, for wisdom, for courage, that he [Netanyahu] is as described in the Old Testament, as one of the son’s of Issachar, a man who understands the times and knows what Israel should do.
Robert: Do you believe, fundamentally, yes or no, that Netanyahu is willing to undertake pre-emptive unilateral air strikes, and perhaps covert action, against Iran?
Joel Rosenberg: That’s a tough question. I think that if anyone, in the history of the Israeli Prime Minister role, in modern Israel, would take pre-emptive action against Iran, it would be Netanyahu. That doesn’t tell us for certain whether he will. It also doesn’t tell us, whether God is going to supernaturally intervene and there’s a number of options there. For example, he allows both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to retire, to be fired, for there to be a coup, to die, and if there’s a regime change, that’s a game-changing moment, and the question is are the people that are in there worse, just as bad, a little bit better or significantly better. We don’t have that yet.
I think one the things that he hopes is that the facts on the ground change, in ways that he can’t do himself. Number one, Netanyahu has to assess: is there a possibility still for regime change?
Second, can covert operations slow down or stop Iran from getting the Bomb? I don’t think they can ultimately stop it, but it has slowed things down I believe. Number three, does he have in his make-up, the ability to make the most difficult decision in the history of the modern state of Israel. And one might add at this moment, it could be the most important decision in the history of the entire nation of Israel, aside from whether to crucify Jesus or not.
I say that, it’s not a related point, there’s only been a few major decisions that had to be made in Israel that had global implications. What to do with Jesus was one. What to do with Iran is another.
Joel Rosenberg: CBN [Christian Broadcast News] just asked me, having worked for him, do I think Netanyahu’s the right guy for the job?
Look, I do think he’s the right guy for the job. But I don’t envy the job he has right now. I think he was born for it, I think God has chosen him for it. I pray for him every day, and his family and his advisors, that the Lord will have mercy on him, draw them to Himself, and give them supernatural wisdom, because this is a tough job for a Roosevelt, a Churchill, a Reagan, or a Thatcher. Tough for everybody.
Robert: It’s interesting because I’ve argued in some of my articles in the Israel National News that this is the single biggest decision in terms of the course of world history, because as you point out in your non-fiction book Epicenter, [a variety of factors are pointing to the] War of Gog and Magog happening soon, with Russia, Iran, Turkey and other nations joining an alliance against Israel, and so my question is: what do you think is the “red-line” that will be, or must be crossed by Iran, or geopolitically, that will trigger Israel to take action against Iran? Beyond that, what are the implications for Israel if they take that action?
Joel Rosenberg: I don’t know currently, what the “red-lines” are for the Prime Minister. This might be a good question for me to ask the Israeli Vice Prime Minister [Moshe Yaalon] tomorrow {{and Joel did ask him exactly my question}} I don’t know he would tell us, but we could ask him. I’ll think about that.
In terms of implications, the implications are that if Israel attacks, and it’s incredibly successful, in six days it’s over and on the seventh day they rest, it’s happened before, it could happen again.
But I think the Israelis have to plan for the worst case scenario, and the worst case is that the world is passing sanctions against them, that there’s a blockade against them, that Israeli embassies are closed all throughout the world, that there’s a wave of anti-Semitism, that oil skyrockets to $2-3-400 dollars a barrel, that nobody blames Iran and everybody blames the Jews, maybe the US cuts off all military aid, and Russia builds an alliance against her [Israel]. It’s bleak.
That’s why I don’t envy the job Netanyahu is in there.
Robert: If Israel undertakes this action against Iran, will this effectively precede the War of Gog and Magog, as the triggering event for the process leading to the War of Gog and Magog?
Joel Rosenberg: I couldn’t say, because there are so many different ways the thing could play out. If Israel launches, and it’s successful and that all these terrible worst-case scenarios don’t happen, and Israel neutralizes Iran for some time, that could create the pre-conditions for security which Ezekiel 38, 39 requires. If the [attack] creates isolation, that could suggest that we’re in the moment of security [which Ezekiel prophesied] and that this is the trigger for all these other countries to move.
However, Ezekiel 38 suggest that some of the Arab countries, Sheba and Dedan is how they’re described, Arabia and the Gulf emirates, they seem to suggest as Gog (the Russian dictator) is moving his forces, “Are you doing this for plunder, for economic reasons?” This suggests that it’s not a military conflict at that moment, but there seems to be an economic dynamic that’s at play, enough to have that be a legitimate question [written in the Bible], “Are you doing this for economic reasons?”
So that raises all kinds of questions. But one of the things that I posited, or theorized in my novels, is that Israel discovers massive amounts of petroleum, as the Bible predicts that they will.
Robert: And which Israel has recently.
Joel Rosenberg: Yes, and that Russia is drawn to the scene of the conflict, because they’re a huge supplier to Europe of oil and particularly natural gas, and interestingly they’re sending a lot of that gas through Turkey.
Here suddenly, now that’s what I was theorizing as a novel, there would be some sort of oil or gas dynamic that moves Russia against Israel, or is at least perceived as part of that dynamic. Now we find that Israel has discovered 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and that in the next few 2 to 3 years Israel will be energy independent and possibly a net exporter of natural gas, around the world, and most likely to Europe, as long as there is not massive anti-Semitism, which is still an open question.
Natural gas could become a trigger point, more than the Iranian nuclear crisis.
One thing that’s interesting about this whole thing with Ahmadinejad, is that there’s nothing in the prophecies of Ezekiel 38 and 39 which suggests that the Iranians are driving the process. The Iranians are part of it, but Persia is mentioned once. It’s Gog, the Russian dictator that’s driving the process. This is interesting, and we may be getting closer, but it’s a little bit out of bounds right now, we don’t see either Medvedev, who’s in the US today, eating hamburgers with the President yesterday, or Putin, who fits a little bit more closely to the image of Gog. In fact Putin dropped back a bit [in 2008], shifting from the President role to the Prime Minister role, but that will likely change in the next few years.
But we’re not seeing that sort of Gog-esque character at the lead in Russia right now. You’re not seeing anti-Israel attacks rhetorically, much less militarily coming out of Russia, you see it coming out of Turkey, so the countries that are sub-countries, that are allied in the prophecy, Libya, Turkey, Iran, others, they’re the ones that are most vocal. Russia is holding back a bit. That dynamic will have to change, that’s what we’ll be watching for.
Joel Rosenberg: Not very. Probably not at all. I don’t know them personally, so it’s not fair for me to say what they may or may not have ever heard. But I’m not aware of any interest. Let’s put it this way, if the administration is pretty consistently disinterested in the issues of Iran’s eschatology, when they’re [Iran’s] the focus of international attention right now, they’re probably not focusing much on Biblical eschatology. It’s not part of their world view. Maybe Reverend Wright talks about this but I haven’t heard anything.
Robert: Have you sent Obama one of your books?
Joel Rosenberg: *Laughs* I wouldn’t be so presumptuous. For the record, I’m happy to chat with him, or anybody in the administration about it. There are a number of members of Congress, and there has been a lot of interest in Washington over the years. Members of Congress inviting me up, in whole groups, staff members, people within different departments, but not the President’s.
Robert: Can you comment briefly on Canada’s relationship with Israel. Prime Minister Harper is one of the greatest supporters of Israel, most vocal.
Joel Rosenberg: Amen.
Photograph by: Geoff Robins, AFP/Getty Images
Joel Rosenberg: First of all, I am so grateful for Prime Minister Harper and the government of Canada, and the people of Canada who have shown extraordinary love for Israel at a time when the rest of the world seems to be willing to take cheapshots against Israel, much less build a coalition against Israel.
It’s been a little bit surprising because not every Canadian government has shown that level of warmth and support. The fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an evangelical probably has something to do with that, although there have been other evangelicals on the world stage who haven’t shown a particular focus on Israel.
I believe God will bless Canada and has blessed Canada for its blessing of Israel and right now, I cannot think of a single other leader on the planet, certainly within the NATO alliance who is showing this level of consistent, principled blessing for Israel and balanced too, the Canadian government isn’t showing hostility to the Palestinians, I think there’s a great care and concern that their rights are taken into account, as well as other Arabs in the region and other Muslims.
It’s striking, personally I’d love to do an Epicenter Conference in Ottawa or Toronto, we haven’t been invited to do one and we don’t like to cook them up on our own. Maybe it’s not necessary.
At the minimum, I’m praying about, is there a way we can honour [Canada’s commitment to Israel]. American Christians and Israel and Canadian Christians, to honour the Prime Minister. I don’t know how it works politically up there but I don’t want to tread where angels fear to go.
Robert: You’re actively involved in humanitarian work in Israel through your organization The Joshua Fund, providing supplies to poor Israelis during the Gaza War in 2009. What is the greatest challenge facing the Joshua Fund, and where do you see the Fund in five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years?
Joel Rosenberg: The biggest challenge that the Joshua Fund faces is the enormous need in Israel as well as with the Palestinians, one out of four who live under the poverty line.
So yes, you have a high-tech dynamic economy that has Israel so much wealthier overall in the macro against Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, but you have big pockets of enormous poverty. You have people coming from Ethiopia and Jews coming with almost nothing, and no language skills in Hebrew, and they’re often settling in outlying towns, near the Gaza border, where no one wants to build a factory and create jobs, or against the Lebanon border where no one wants to create factories and jobs, so it’s a really tough situation.
And we as followers of Jesus Christ, in Canada, in the US and around the world, I believe it’s our duty, biblically, to feed the poor, clothe the naked, care for the suffering, this is out of Matthew 25. So that’s the biggest challenge, is the enormity of it. As well as strengthening our brothers and sisters, our fellow believers in Israel, making sure that they’re encouraged, prayed for, and supported, it’s a growing body of believers in Israel, but there’s a lot of harassment and persecution there. It’s not like Sudan, or Saudi Arabia or Iran, but it’s still challenging. Those are the biggest challenges.
Down stream, well we believe that God is telling us to prepare for the ability to put $100 million worth of relief into Israel and $20 million worth of relief and supplies into Israel’s neighbouring countries. What God hasn’t told us however is, is [whether] that [is] a one-year thing? Is that over several years? We’re building the infrastructure, while trying to care for people now, stockpile some for the future, and build the staff, legal and financial infrastructure to be able to handle a growing amount of resources growing there.
Let me just close, the theme of this Epicenter Conference, is to build a global movement of Christians to bless Israel, and her neighbours in the name of Jesus Christ. What does that mean?
It means this shouldn’t be an American-only, or Canadian-only, or North American-only effort to show the love of Jesus Christ to the people of the Epicenter. It needs to be something that is worldwide, because ultimately it’s nothing about Joel Rosenberg or the Joshua Fund, I mean who really cares what we’re doing.
The point is: What is God doing? God loves the people of the Epicenter, He sent his son Jesus Christ to die in the Epicenter, to rise again in the Epicenter, and Jesus is coming back to the Epicenter. That’s the focal point of human history, and increasingly it’s the focal point of our times, and the questions is: what is every Christian, every follower of Jesus Christ on the planet, what is our call and responsibility to the people in that region, given the moment that we’re in, and will we be faithful to God’s calling on our lives.
Robert: Thank you, this was excellent. It was an honour to meet with you.
With special thanks to my friend Derek Sawyer for the interview photographs.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Disgusting Ignorance of G20 Protesters
By: Robert D. Onley
While protesters were blindly smashing windows, torching police cars, and causing unnecessary destruction in Toronto, a far more noteworthy story tragically slipped past the raging mobs of havoc-wreakers, and past many Canadians.
Two more Canadian soldiers were killed fighting in Afghanistan this weekend. Master Cpl. Kristal Giesebrecht, 34, and Pte. Andrew Miller, 21, were killed Saturday when their armoured vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan’s Panjwaii District, about 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar City.
As protesters complained of having their “rights” deprived after being briefly “detained” by police, likely with good reason or as a precautionary measure, two Canadian soldiers paid the ultimate price while serving their country overseas.
The contrast could not be more stark between the whiny, sickly teenagers and university students “fighting” against the “new world order,” and the brave medics who were literally fighting radical Islamic terrorists on the other side of the planet in one of the most backward, violent nations on earth.
Receiving a baton to the head or being shoved by riot police in order to preserve security and then complaining about it, inarguably pales in comparison to the Canadian soldiers who daily carry 40 kilograms of gear while truly marching in 40-degree Celsius heat, constantly on the lookout for an enemy that literally wants to kill them.
The “dramatic” pictures of mildly bloodied, pale and thin protesters are pathetic examples of an entirely purposeless generation of youth with nothing better to do than organize group temper tantrums in front of Canada’s finest police forces. The protesters’ chants and breathless declarations of solidarity against an invisible “corporate enemy” are disturbing indicators of people who know absolutely nothing of what it means to fight for a real cause.
With no deaths, no real injuries, and nothing to show for their protests, the Black-Bloc and other pseudo-anarchist groups are nonetheless claiming victory against the Canadian “police state” and all its alleged evils. But as the bodies of the two medics return home to Canadian soil today, the anarchists in Toronto this weekend are seen as merely representing the shameful and disgusting ignorance pervasive among the radical Left fringe.
For the anarchists, theirs’ is a world consumed with selfish (and hypocritical) counter-culture behavior, and a produce-nothing rabble-rousing infatuation with long-buried Marxist ideologies. Wearing Converse sneakers and black Levis jeans with iPod’s in the pockets, their chants against the capitalist world order and other darling causes of the Left, are as repulsive and moronic as they come.
For the soldiers, theirs’ is a life embodied by selfless and courageous action in the defense and promotion of the very freedoms and liberties that the idiotic protesters blithely claimed were stripped away. Wearing army boots and cargo pants, carrying C7 rifles in their hands, Canadian soldiers walk into the most dangerous situations on earth to help bring peace and security to a land and a people that have known nothing but war for generations.
Aside from the ubiquitous “Bring the Troops Home” signs, the absence of any acknowledgment of the sacrifice wrought in Afghanistan speaks to the selective ignorance of the protest crowd. Yes, there were many legitimate causes represented at the protests, many peaceful protesters and indeed protesting is entirely legal and can even be effective. This is not the issue.
The disconcerting reality is the fact that so many young men and women were entirely willing to publicly and violently resist a Summit whose very purpose is to address the myriad economic and social problems plaguing the world today. Without coordinating financial policy among the world powers, the global recession could very well get much worse, with devastating consequences for us all.
Thus the very tax-payer funded health-care and social services enjoyed by the protesters here in Canada would be endangered if not for progressive actions by world governments to stabilize and grow the global economy. Protesting international dialogue is akin to demanding a return to uncooperative self-interested nationalist policies, a dangerous and damning position.
Smashing the windows of legitimate businesses, armed with full stomachs and bloated egos, all while screaming nonsense about some secretive global agenda, is a far cry from the Canadian medics in a far away land helping Afghanis with little to eat and a nearly non-existent government, let alone basic health-care.
These same Afghanis could care less about the dubious anti-globalist claims of anarchists in Toronto, when their lives are daily threatened by a very real enemy in the Taliban, led by men who do not hesitate to murder fellow citizens for the most ludicrous of “offenses.”
Our globalized world requires — surprise — global coordination. In the same way, threats to our way of life from Islamic extremists demand international cooperation to defeat them. Quite unlike the protesters’ cowardly anonymous black garb, the grave multitude of problems facing the world today demand action by real men and women in uniform, whether police, fire or military.
Brave Canadians soldiers lost their lives helping revive an utterly desperate nation in Afghanistan while protesters recklessly and ignorantly made a mockery of the rights and freedoms that so many around the world are denied every day. For shame.
While protesters were blindly smashing windows, torching police cars, and causing unnecessary destruction in Toronto, a far more noteworthy story tragically slipped past the raging mobs of havoc-wreakers, and past many Canadians.
Two more Canadian soldiers were killed fighting in Afghanistan this weekend. Master Cpl. Kristal Giesebrecht, 34, and Pte. Andrew Miller, 21, were killed Saturday when their armoured vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan’s Panjwaii District, about 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar City.
As protesters complained of having their “rights” deprived after being briefly “detained” by police, likely with good reason or as a precautionary measure, two Canadian soldiers paid the ultimate price while serving their country overseas.
The contrast could not be more stark between the whiny, sickly teenagers and university students “fighting” against the “new world order,” and the brave medics who were literally fighting radical Islamic terrorists on the other side of the planet in one of the most backward, violent nations on earth.
Receiving a baton to the head or being shoved by riot police in order to preserve security and then complaining about it, inarguably pales in comparison to the Canadian soldiers who daily carry 40 kilograms of gear while truly marching in 40-degree Celsius heat, constantly on the lookout for an enemy that literally wants to kill them.
The “dramatic” pictures of mildly bloodied, pale and thin protesters are pathetic examples of an entirely purposeless generation of youth with nothing better to do than organize group temper tantrums in front of Canada’s finest police forces. The protesters’ chants and breathless declarations of solidarity against an invisible “corporate enemy” are disturbing indicators of people who know absolutely nothing of what it means to fight for a real cause.
With no deaths, no real injuries, and nothing to show for their protests, the Black-Bloc and other pseudo-anarchist groups are nonetheless claiming victory against the Canadian “police state” and all its alleged evils. But as the bodies of the two medics return home to Canadian soil today, the anarchists in Toronto this weekend are seen as merely representing the shameful and disgusting ignorance pervasive among the radical Left fringe.
For the anarchists, theirs’ is a world consumed with selfish (and hypocritical) counter-culture behavior, and a produce-nothing rabble-rousing infatuation with long-buried Marxist ideologies. Wearing Converse sneakers and black Levis jeans with iPod’s in the pockets, their chants against the capitalist world order and other darling causes of the Left, are as repulsive and moronic as they come.
For the soldiers, theirs’ is a life embodied by selfless and courageous action in the defense and promotion of the very freedoms and liberties that the idiotic protesters blithely claimed were stripped away. Wearing army boots and cargo pants, carrying C7 rifles in their hands, Canadian soldiers walk into the most dangerous situations on earth to help bring peace and security to a land and a people that have known nothing but war for generations.
Aside from the ubiquitous “Bring the Troops Home” signs, the absence of any acknowledgment of the sacrifice wrought in Afghanistan speaks to the selective ignorance of the protest crowd. Yes, there were many legitimate causes represented at the protests, many peaceful protesters and indeed protesting is entirely legal and can even be effective. This is not the issue.
The disconcerting reality is the fact that so many young men and women were entirely willing to publicly and violently resist a Summit whose very purpose is to address the myriad economic and social problems plaguing the world today. Without coordinating financial policy among the world powers, the global recession could very well get much worse, with devastating consequences for us all.
Thus the very tax-payer funded health-care and social services enjoyed by the protesters here in Canada would be endangered if not for progressive actions by world governments to stabilize and grow the global economy. Protesting international dialogue is akin to demanding a return to uncooperative self-interested nationalist policies, a dangerous and damning position.
Smashing the windows of legitimate businesses, armed with full stomachs and bloated egos, all while screaming nonsense about some secretive global agenda, is a far cry from the Canadian medics in a far away land helping Afghanis with little to eat and a nearly non-existent government, let alone basic health-care.
These same Afghanis could care less about the dubious anti-globalist claims of anarchists in Toronto, when their lives are daily threatened by a very real enemy in the Taliban, led by men who do not hesitate to murder fellow citizens for the most ludicrous of “offenses.”
Our globalized world requires — surprise — global coordination. In the same way, threats to our way of life from Islamic extremists demand international cooperation to defeat them. Quite unlike the protesters’ cowardly anonymous black garb, the grave multitude of problems facing the world today demand action by real men and women in uniform, whether police, fire or military.
Brave Canadians soldiers lost their lives helping revive an utterly desperate nation in Afghanistan while protesters recklessly and ignorantly made a mockery of the rights and freedoms that so many around the world are denied every day. For shame.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
My interview with Joel C. Rosenberg at the Epicenter Conference 2010
On Friday afternoon I had the incredible privilege to interview Mr. Rosenberg for over half an hour for an article set to appear in Evangelical Christian magazine later this summer.
In the interview, we discussed the Iranian nuclear threat, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic beliefs, Canada's relationship with Israel and Joel's work with The Joshua Fund, his non-profit charitable organization operating in Israel.
It was such a blessing and an honour to meet and interview Joel Rosenberg, as I have been reading his work for a number of years and highly regard his insights into current events. Joel was an advisor to current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the late 1990's, and has worked for a number of other high public profile figures both in Washington and Jerusalem.
The Epicenter Conference itself was a moving experience, highlighted by the key-note address of current Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon. Mr. Yaalon offered amazing perspectives from inside the Israeli government on how Israel views the world and the threats facing the Jewish State. His remarks were a truly moving reminder of Israel's hostile circumstances.
I will be posting the full text of my interview with Joel Rosenberg later this week, as well as the accompanying article for Evangelical Christian magazine later this month.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
"High-tech lessons and the G20 Summits"
My article below is based on my experiences at the G20 Youth Summit and was published today in the Windsor Star. Enjoy. - R.O.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY ROBERT D. ONLEY, SPECIAL TO THE WINDSOR STAR - JUNE 26, 2010This weekend, world leaders will gather in the fortress that is now downtown Toronto to create and co-ordinate policies on the most pressing issues facing the globe today. Given the controversy over the incredible costs of hosting the G20 Summit, the least that Canadians can hope for is a fruitful round of negotiations.
But these extravagant international events often wind up becoming nothing more than a pricey photo-op. Despite months of prep-work heading into their meetings, consensus tends to evaporate during negotiations when communication between rival leaders breaks down over issues of national self-interest. Is the world thus forever doomed to wasteful G20 Summits?
Not if the 2010 G8/G20 Youth Summit is any indication. From May 9-14, over 100 undergraduate and graduate students from the G20 nations met in Vancouver to participate as delegates in the 5th annual meeting of 20- to 30 year-old aspiring leaders.
This year's Youth Summit offered a look at the high-tech future of international dialogue, one dominated by social networking, instant messaging and online interaction.
As a Canadian, I had the unique privilege of representing Mexico as the Minister of Finance, due to the absence of national Mexican delegates and to an abundance of qualified Canadian applicants. The Finance Ministers' goal for the week was to reach consensus on two items: Creating a global financial regulatory model, and implementing comprehensive reforms for international financial institutions.
Prior to even meeting in Vancouver, delegates used Google Groups to debate potential agenda topics through a month-long process of daily e-mail discourse, which also allowed the Finance delegates get to know each other individually. By the time we met in Vancouver we had agreed on our agenda, facilitating what we hoped would be a focused round of negotiations.
Nonetheless, once the actual debates began in the beautiful Centre for International Dialogue at Simon Fraser University, the opening salvos from the delegates were generally nationalist, hard-line positions on financial policy. Most of our stated proposals offered little hope for consensus and set the table for a week-long session of teeth-pulling.
However soon after lunch on that first day, the selfish one-upmanship rapidly changed. Delegates recognized the potential for online conversation on our laptops and began exchanging Skype usernames. (Skype is an online chat program.) We then began engaging in the modern-day equivalent of trading private notes through sherpas. Except these 21st century 'notes' were silent, discrete, and imperceptible - they were digital.
With one group conversation for all of the youth Finance Ministers, our discourse shifted from unproductive verbal tit-for-tat, to hushed typing on our keyboards. While delegates spoke, real-time colour commentary poured onto our screens as arguments were picked apart and constructively criticized. The quiet, digital transfer of our thoughts through Skype was facilitating a parallel stream of constructive dialogue alongside our verbal exchanges.
But chatting through Skype was just the beginning, as delegates soon became Facebook friends and swapped Blackberry Messenger contact PINs. Now we were able to peer into the lives of our international "rivals", learning political views, group affiliations, and read their statements and publications. Together these provided further diplomatic back channels through which we could stealthily converse, scheme and debate, resulting in two very productive days of negotiations.
When it came time to draft our "Final Communiqué" -- which will be presented to the Finance Ministers at the actual G20 Summit in Toronto -- we utilized Google Documents. This browser-based application allows simultaneous online editing and conveniently eliminated the drawn-out haggling over wording and phrasing that often plagues drafting.
Use of these modern communication programs was not a method actively promoted by the Youth Summit organizers. Instead, after just a few hours of unproductive negotiations, we, the Finance Ministers at G8/G20 Youth Summit, turned to the forms of modern communication that we are already comfortable with in order to break diplomatic deadlock.
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev recently joked that perhaps he and President Obama should conduct diplomacy via text messages. Indeed, some will say it is naive to suggest that our world leaders use Skype, Facebook, Google and Blackberrys to debate policy proposals during actual international negotiations. But is this really that farfetched?
The fact that the Internet and digital communication pervades nearly every aspect of life for the 20-something crowd suggests that tomorrow's leaders will not be content using only pen and paper at the 2030 G20 Summit. Perhaps then it is time today's national leaders caught up to the world youth's grasp of global communication technologies: We are ready to lead, are they ready to learn?
Robert D. Onley is a law student at the University of Windsor and can be followed on his website at robertonley.com
© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star
http://www.windsorstar.com/opinion/op-ed/High%20tech%20lessons%20summits/3204790/story.html
Monday, June 21, 2010
Must-read article: “If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down”
José Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain, has written a masterfully eloquent article detailing why the West must support Israel. His article appeared in The London Times but can be read at the blog below.
Here is a brief quote from “If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down”:
"The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears. This cannot be allowed to happen..."
"The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears. This cannot be allowed to happen..."
Where do you stand?
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Report: Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
By: Robert D. Onley
This week the United Nations Security Council passed the latest round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. UN Resolution 1929 imposes severe restrictions on the Iranian regime's ability to conduct trade in supplies for their nuclear program. However almost immediately, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the sanctions as a "used hankerchief" and threatened to eject UN weapons inspectors from Iran's nuclear sites.
Today, The Times Online reports that Saudi Arabia --another of Iran's avowed enemies-- has given Israel "clear skies" to attack Iranian nuclear sites and stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is arguably more threatened by a nuclear Iran than even Israel, but as the world's largest supplier of oil has much more economic interest at stake than Israel. Letting Israel do the "dirty work" and draw international condemnation is therefore a favourable move by the Saudi government.
Meanwhile Israel has been repeatedly threatened with destruction by the leaders in Iran. US President Obama has not ruled out American military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, possibly conducted in coordination with Israel, but appears very hesitant to shake up the Middle East worse than his predecessor. All of this puts enormous pressure on tiny Israel to conduct the largest scale unilateral pre-emptive military strike in its history.
This week the United Nations Security Council passed the latest round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. UN Resolution 1929 imposes severe restrictions on the Iranian regime's ability to conduct trade in supplies for their nuclear program. However almost immediately, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the sanctions as a "used hankerchief" and threatened to eject UN weapons inspectors from Iran's nuclear sites.
Today, The Times Online reports that Saudi Arabia --another of Iran's avowed enemies-- has given Israel "clear skies" to attack Iranian nuclear sites and stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is arguably more threatened by a nuclear Iran than even Israel, but as the world's largest supplier of oil has much more economic interest at stake than Israel. Letting Israel do the "dirty work" and draw international condemnation is therefore a favourable move by the Saudi government.
Meanwhile Israel has been repeatedly threatened with destruction by the leaders in Iran. US President Obama has not ruled out American military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, possibly conducted in coordination with Israel, but appears very hesitant to shake up the Middle East worse than his predecessor. All of this puts enormous pressure on tiny Israel to conduct the largest scale unilateral pre-emptive military strike in its history.
In the past I've written here about the prospect of an Israeli unilateral strike against Iran. The consequences of such a strike will be undeniably severe for Israel and for the world, but the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is far more troubling. The fact that the Iranian leader so flippantly dismissed the latest round of sanctions suggests that Iran's nuclear weapons program is perhaps far enough along to be unaffected; in other words, it's already too late.
How long will Israel wait for these latest sanctions to take effect? How can any nation measure the effectiveness of sanctions anyway? Iran has shown nothing but reckless disregard toward the well-founded concerns of the international community, and proved its callousness once again this week. There is no shortage of proof that the Iranian regime is racing toward nuclear weapons capability - Resolution 1929 bears that out.
The million-dollar question then is this: when will the international community (notably the United States) admit that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons? At what point will the world's leaders acknowledge that the only effective way to stop Iran is through targeted military strikes?
In the West it is almost taboo to suggest that it will be necessary to use to air strikes to stop Iran's nuclear program. Indeed after the Iraq War, Barack Obama's Cairo speech and his promises for "change" across the diplomatic spectrum, opening up another theatre in the Middle East seems like a Bush-era pipe dream. This sentiment conveniently ignores the fact that right now, under the leadership of President Obama, the U.S. Air Force is conducting more drone air strikes than ever before. The only thing that has "changed" is the volume of missiles raining from the skies over Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Thus while many commentators are slow to admit that air strikes may be the only remaining option for stopping Iran's nuclear visions, the pragmatic reality is that the equipment to do so is already in the region and technologically is more precise than ever before.
More critical for Israel, Obama's love-to-hate ally, is the fact that a pre-emptive strike represents a viable option buffeted by successful precedents. Two nations in the Middle East have had their nuclear programs stopped short by Israel. One of them, Syria, is a proud ally of Iran. In 2007, Syria's covert nuclear reactor was destroyed Israeli jets, while back in 1981, Iraq's nuclear program was forcefully stopped by pin-point Israeli air strikes. As I covered in another piece, Israel is not afraid to take such aggressive action.
While those two raids were surgical successes, Iran's hidden nuclear sites present a far greater challenge for the Israeli Air Force, if in fact the IAF were to conduct such a mission. However given that Saudi Arabia is now reportedly granting Israel clearance to use Saudi airspace specifically for a strike against Iran, it is patently clear that Israel is not the only nation that believes air strikes may be the only way to truly stop the Iranian Bomb.
Saudi Arabia's decision is also a loud warning that the Iranian nuclear stand-off is shifting into a most dangerous phase. The world can certainly expect more war-gaming and posturing on all sides as the weeks progress.
All Israel needs is a green light from the US to fly over Iraq toward Iran, and the fireworks can begin. What happens after that day could be scarier still for Israel. Russia and China both have enormous economic interests in Iran and anyone who damages their vital energy lifelines could face more than just a verbal lashing. This is a most grave consideration, one which Israel's leaders know all too well as they prepare to make the most fateful decision in the Jewish State's contentious history.
How long will Israel wait for these latest sanctions to take effect? How can any nation measure the effectiveness of sanctions anyway? Iran has shown nothing but reckless disregard toward the well-founded concerns of the international community, and proved its callousness once again this week. There is no shortage of proof that the Iranian regime is racing toward nuclear weapons capability - Resolution 1929 bears that out.
The million-dollar question then is this: when will the international community (notably the United States) admit that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons? At what point will the world's leaders acknowledge that the only effective way to stop Iran is through targeted military strikes?
In the West it is almost taboo to suggest that it will be necessary to use to air strikes to stop Iran's nuclear program. Indeed after the Iraq War, Barack Obama's Cairo speech and his promises for "change" across the diplomatic spectrum, opening up another theatre in the Middle East seems like a Bush-era pipe dream. This sentiment conveniently ignores the fact that right now, under the leadership of President Obama, the U.S. Air Force is conducting more drone air strikes than ever before. The only thing that has "changed" is the volume of missiles raining from the skies over Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Thus while many commentators are slow to admit that air strikes may be the only remaining option for stopping Iran's nuclear visions, the pragmatic reality is that the equipment to do so is already in the region and technologically is more precise than ever before.
More critical for Israel, Obama's love-to-hate ally, is the fact that a pre-emptive strike represents a viable option buffeted by successful precedents. Two nations in the Middle East have had their nuclear programs stopped short by Israel. One of them, Syria, is a proud ally of Iran. In 2007, Syria's covert nuclear reactor was destroyed Israeli jets, while back in 1981, Iraq's nuclear program was forcefully stopped by pin-point Israeli air strikes. As I covered in another piece, Israel is not afraid to take such aggressive action.
While those two raids were surgical successes, Iran's hidden nuclear sites present a far greater challenge for the Israeli Air Force, if in fact the IAF were to conduct such a mission. However given that Saudi Arabia is now reportedly granting Israel clearance to use Saudi airspace specifically for a strike against Iran, it is patently clear that Israel is not the only nation that believes air strikes may be the only way to truly stop the Iranian Bomb.
Saudi Arabia's decision is also a loud warning that the Iranian nuclear stand-off is shifting into a most dangerous phase. The world can certainly expect more war-gaming and posturing on all sides as the weeks progress.
All Israel needs is a green light from the US to fly over Iraq toward Iran, and the fireworks can begin. What happens after that day could be scarier still for Israel. Russia and China both have enormous economic interests in Iran and anyone who damages their vital energy lifelines could face more than just a verbal lashing. This is a most grave consideration, one which Israel's leaders know all too well as they prepare to make the most fateful decision in the Jewish State's contentious history.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
"Enduring sacrifices at Juno Beach" - published today in the Windsor Star
Tomorrow marks the 66th anniversary of the Allies' D-Day invasion of Normandy, France, a day when over 14,000 Canadian soldiers landed at Juno Beach. Last week I had the opportunity to visit Juno Beach and write about the experience. My article on this visit was published today in the Windsor Star and can be read below. I hope you enjoy and take a moment to remember the sacrifices of Canada and all of the Allies on June 6, 1944.
-- Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enduring sacrifices at Juno Beach
BY ROBERT D. ONLEY, SPECIAL TO THE WINDSOR STAR
JUNE 5, 2010
Half-buried in the sand on the Courseulles-sur-mer shore in northern France, a rusting Nazi observation bunker crookedly overlooks the waters that Canadian soldiers braved on D-Day exactly 66 years ago tomorrow.
The history books tell us that the greatest military operation in human history saw some 155,000 Allied soldiers cross the English Channel to land at Normandy, including more than 14,000 young Canadians who would storm ashore on Juno Beach.
I have read many histories of June 6, watched the graphic scenes of the landings in Saving Private Ryan and played first-person shooter video games which simulate D-Day. Together these provided what I thought was a complete picture of the battles that day.
But it is not until I am actually standing here, on Juno Beach, that the true experiences of that day become conceivable. As clear ocean water retreats with the tide around my shoes, my thoughts immediately flash to the Canadian soldiers (most of them younger than me at 23), who took their first -- and in some cases, last -- fateful steps onto this very sand.
Standing here, looking up from the edge of the ocean on Juno Beach, I can see three weather-worn Nazi bunkers within deadly firing range of my position. Hunkered aboard the landing craft as they approached this exact location, Canadian soldiers most certainly saw these same bunkers and knew what horror was soon coming, or what was already on its way. To have exited the landing craft nonetheless, rushing ashore directly into enemy fire, speaks to the sheer bravery of those men.
The deadly obstacles and mines placed by the Nazis are long gone, but relics of the Nazi occupation remain. Enormous concrete bunkers strategically positioned along eight kilometres of the Juno sector are imposing reminders of what our soldiers faced that day. The seventy-five millimetre cannons that once sat atop some of the bunkers have been removed, but their bases persist as immovable emblems of the Nazi era in France.
Walking up the beach from the water, wet sand and seaweed stuck to my shoes, I first notice multiple bullet pockmarks on the Nazi observation bunker in front of me. Canadians fought back here. Canadian men unleashed their weaponry to survive on this very piece of earth. A large chunk of the concrete bunker is blown out below what was the slot for a German MG42 machine gun -- Canadian soldiers undoubtedly had a part in causing that destruction. Whatever exactly happened here at this bunker was incredibly violent and deadly. Time has not, and never can erase the evidence.
The farthest military advance of any the Allied forces on D-Day was achieved by the Canadians, fighting nearly 10 kilometres deep into Nazi-occupied territory. Yet prior to 2003, no museum in France existed to commemorate the Canadian soldiers' contributions. This changed with the opening of the Juno Beach Centre in the French commune of Courseulles-sur-mer, which Canadian and British troops liberated on June 6, 1944.
The Juno Beach Centre is the only Canadian Second World War museum in Normandy, and was developed in the late 1990s by a group of Canadian war veterans who felt that the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers during the liberation of Europe were not adequately represented in the Normandy region.
Paid for entirely with private donations, the Centre stands a mere 100 metres from one of the Nazi bunkers which once attempted to repel the Canadian liberators.
Some 369 Canadians lost their lives on this beach and in the countryside on D-Day, many not even making it to shore, ensnared by lethal German shoreline traps. June 6 alone saw over 1000 Canadian casualties. The Juno Beach Centre helps maintain the memory of that sacrifice.
While the national hostilities that made the D-Day invasion necessary have since disappeared under the unifying forces of the European Union, the unparalleled sacrifice of a generation of Canadian soldiers at Juno Beach can never be allowed to recede from the Canadian public conscience.
Both of my grandfathers flew in the Royal Canadian Air Force during the Second World War, both flew on D-Day, and both survived the war. Such a strong familial connection to the war and to D-Day is rare in 2010 and will only grow rarer, necessitating the education of those Canadians who know nothing of the sacrifice wrought during the Second World War.
Three times as many Canadian soldiers lost their lives on that single day in 1944, as have died fighting in Afghanistan over the past nine years. Mere minutes spent on Juno Beach illustrates what Canadians are prepared to sacrifice, whether it is liberating Europe, maintaining peacekeeping missions or helping secure a stable, peaceful Afghanistan. We are not a nation that quits when the battle gets bloody. Canadians soldiers, men and women, rise to the occasion, and win.
Therefore the challenge for Canadians in 2010 must be to ensure that the tremendous courage of that generation is an example engrained in the minds of today's youth and young adults. This includes those students of my generation whose perceptions of war have been distorted by the "unjust" war in Iraq and the ongoing debates over Canada's mission in Afghanistan.
This year saw the passing of Canada's last remaining veteran of the First World War. Thus as the remaining generational linkages to the Second World War start their decline in the coming decades, it is increasingly important that the lessons and history of the world's most violent conflict are taught to generations with no personal attachment to that war.
The selfless sacrifices of the men who fought at Juno Beach on D-Day and throughout the Second World War are a fundamental piece of Canada's identity, and must be preserved, understood and revered by all Canadians for generations to come.
Robert D. Onley is a law student at the University of Windsor and can be followed on his website at robertonley.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)