"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.

Four Israelis shot down by terrorists in the West Bank. (JPost)

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.

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

Click here for an aerial view of Juno Beach showing photo locations.


Click here for other Photos on World Assessor.com

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

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

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.

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

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.