Thursday, October 29, 2009

Toronto Star Columnist Gives Anti-Israel Activist A Soapbox

     

 
  Toronto Star Columnist Gives Anti-Israel Activist A Soapbox
 
 
By: Mike Fegelman, Executive Director

  
View this Article Online and Discuss on Headlines and Deadlines

October 8, 2009

 
Dear HonestReporting Canada Subscriber,

Anti-Israel activist Richard Falk (pictured) recently came to Canada on a speaking tour. Falk, the UN's "special rapporteur" on the Palestinian territories, has been described by the National Post's Jonathan Kay as an "ignorant ideologue" with "shrill opinions" having spent the past two decades building a virulently anti-Israel reputation. In a letter to the Jerusalem Post, UN Watch's Hillel Neuer wrote the following about Falk:

"One with the moral compass to argue, as Falk did in 2002, that suicide bombings were the "only means still available by which to inflict sufficient harm on Israel so that the (Palestinian) struggle could go on." One with the political judgment to write, in a 1979 New York Times op-ed, that Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution "may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country." One with the good sense to support - as Falk has done openly and repeatedly - conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In March 2008, he told a radio interviewer that there are "a lot of grounds for suspicion" that the attacks were an inside job. In June, he called for an investigation into whether "some sort of controlled explosion from within' destroyed the Twin Towers. Finally, Falk praised "the patience, the fortitude, the courage, and the intelligence" of conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, to whose 2006 book, 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Falk contributed a chapter."

While most Canadian media outlets ignored Falk's visit, not surprisingly, Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui gave him a soapbox to inject his anti-Israel venom. Siddqui's Sept. 27 column presented Falk as a neutral, objective, and credible source, whereas he should have responsibly provided Star readers with at least some peripheral understanding of Falk's background as a discredited extremist at the UN. Siddiqui went even as far as describing Falk as a "high-profile Jewish public intellectual" and a "prolific author." This from a man who has described Israel as having "genocidal tendencies." But instead, Siddiqui repeated past allegations of Falk's claiming that Israel was committing "collective punishment" and "crimes against humanity", while quoting Falk as saying that Israel's supporters "keep shooting the messenger." Falk also perpetuated the lie that Israel, not Hamas broke the November 4 ceasefire, while endorsing boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns against Israel.

In sharp contrast, a CBC TV interview on September 24 between anchor Harry Forestell and Falk on CBC Newsworld saw host Forrestel confronting Falk's baseless rhetoric. Forestell commendably contextualized Israel's security concerns and asked Falk repeatedly challenging questions instead of just giving him a pulpit to mislead Canadians into believing that Israel alone was responsible for impeding efforts to a peaceful resolution with the Palestinians.

To view the entire interview click here or on the image below.


                                            

Here's a short transcript of part of the six-plus minute interview:

Forestell: ...fundamentally what is it that is keeping these sides (Israelis/Palestinians) from sitting down and struggling to come to terms with the issues that they need to grapple with?

Falk:
... Israel is not prepared to allow the Palestinians to have a viable sovereign state and they're... expanding the settlements, expelling Palestinians from East Jerusalem that make it less and less likely that a two-state solution is anything more than diplomatic rhetoric.

Forestell:
Surely the concern on Israel's side though is understandable that at any point in the past ten or so years when Israel has yielded some ground, opened up the door to that opportunity, the result has been rocket attacks, it has been attacks against its citizens, bombings in the street. One can understand why the Israelis would be chary of doing that again?

Falk:
One can understand that up to a point, but I'm afraid that the narrative, on the violence of the two sides has not really been very balanced. Israel I think has never been genuinely committed to negotiations that would produce a real peace solution based on a Palestinian sovereign state, otherwise they wouldn't continue to expand their settlements, they wouldn't have built the separation wall on Palestinian territory, they've done lots of things that are incompatible with finding a solution.

Forrestell:
As has Hamas, I mean what has Hamas done in the last few years that has indicated any willingness on its part to work with Israel toward mitigating the terrible situation of the people who live in Gaza?

Falk:
They've done several things. When they were elected in January of 2006 they established a unilateral one-year ceasefire and they maintained that even though Israel did a lot of provocative things such as assassinating several of their leaders. Then they had a temporary ceasefire in 2008 just before the Gaza war which reduced the rocket fire to zero and they've proposed extending that ceasefire for ten years. Israel refused to have any diplomatic connection with the Hamas leadership and so, I think..."

Forestell:
Well it's difficult to, I'm sorry to interrupt, but it has to be said that it's difficult to negotiate with a party that refuses your very existence as a state.

While it's unfortunate that the CBC even gave airtime to Falk given his past statements, efforts, and troubling history, notwithstanding, anchor Harry Forestell exercised the highest standards of professional journalism by asking informed, challenging questions, instead of just giving airtime for activists to spread misinformation and lies. Haroon Siddiqui could learn a thing or two from Harry Forestell.

TAKE ACTION NOW:
Please send your considered comments to the Toronto Star pointing out Haroon Siddiqui's disingenuous attempt to present a virulent anti-Israel activist as a credible and objective source. Please refer to Siddqui's Sept. 27 column entitled: "Israel keeps shooting the messenger" and send sophisticated, articulate, and non-accusatory letters to: lettertoed@thestar.ca. Please send your letters in your own words and limit them to under 200 words.


HRC OP-ED PRINTED IN LE DROIT

Bias by omission is one of the most frequent and insidious forms of media bias. By choosing to report certain information over others, the media controls access to information and manipulates public sentiment. This type of bias can occur either within a story, or over a prolonged period of time as a particular news outlet reports one perspective and leaves out another. When it comes to media coverage of Israel, bias by omission often occurs when media outlets neglect to mention the causal factors which lead to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.

A Patrice Gaudreault article (read here in French or English), which appeared in the August 31 edition of the French newspaper Le Droit, attempted to document the observations of BQ MP Richard Nadeau after his trip to the Gaza Strip a few short weeks ago. However, the article was marred by many serious omissions which rendered it incomplete thereby misleading Le Droit readers. Typical charges of "Israeli apartheid" and Gaza being the "world's largest open-air prison" went unchallenged. Nadeau was given a soapbox to attack Israel without challenge and without having any historical context given to the conflict. For example, the article failed to contextualize the reason for both the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip and the crucial background information explaining the cause of Israel's Operation Cast Lead this past January. The resulting effect of these omissions saw the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict presented as if it had occurred in a vacuum, leaving Le Droit readers with the impression that the State of Israel is an unrepentant aggressor seeking the destruction of its Gazan neighbours.

After HonestReporting Canada brought our concerns to the attention of senior editors at Le Droit, they agreed to print an op-ed submitted by HRC staff pointing out some of the many deficiencies of this report. To read the op-ed as it was printed in the Sept. 26 edition of Le Droit, please click here to read the French version or click here to read the English translation.

               

RECOMMENDED RESOURCE: BUYCOTT ISRAEL

Are you fed up with calls to boycott Israeli goods and services like the attempt to stop Mountain Equipment Co-op from using Israeli suppliers, or the campaign against showcasing Tel Aviv at the Toronto International Film Festival? Want to do something about it? Now you can. Sign up for BUYCOTT ALERTS today.

Buycott Israel is a joint project under the coordination of the Canada-Israel Committee, which aims to support Israel by encouraging the purchase of products and services from Israel. Purchasing Israeli-made merchandise is a great way to send a positive message. Buycott Israel will also help you to combat boycott and/or divestment campaigns against Israel by alerting you and giving you the necessary tools to fight back against BDS campaigns.

HonestReporting Canada encourages you to visit the Buycott Israel website today and sign up to join this important campaign.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
 

 

 
 
   
 
 
Toronto Office: P.O. Box 6, Station Q Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7
Montreal Office: P.O. Box 42508, Succursale Snowdon Montreal, Quebec H3W 3H7
Office: (416) 915-9157 E-mail: info@honestreporting.ca Web: www.honestreporting.ca

John Moore's area of Expertise

[Written to John Moore after he wrote an article in the National Post called "Suzanne Somers: Bimbo MD. ]

John
Usually I find myself disagreeing with your articles in the National Post when they are in the area of climate change especially which does not exactly seem to be in your area of expertise.

However since I criticize, I must also congratulate you on your article about Suzanne Somers Bimbo MD. This is an area which you obviously know something about and it goes a long way to debunk the myth of Hollywood gods and goddesses who know everything. Clearly they live in a world of fantasy and make-believe and often delude themselves into thinking that they know more than the average person which is a hyperbole beyond scope.

Congratulations on the great article. I hope you write more on this area especially as it applies to Whoopie Goldberg, Roman Polanski, Michael Moore and their ilk.

But please John, would you actually READ the National Post articles on climate change before you even think of writing another article on the topic? That is NOT your area of expertise or research, but knowing about celebrities ruses, except for Al Gore and David Suzuki, obviously is.

Keep up the good work [which of course does not apply to 'Gore-ball' warming] (:-)

Sincerely,

Charles G. Pedley
===========================
200 Educational Programs = Less than $21 CAD - Excellent Software - Over 8 Million Users
http://www.schoolgenius.com

Monday, October 19, 2009

John Moore: Sucked In

John Moore has done it again. I think he reads the Star and writes for the Post but NEVER reads the Post! Clearly Lawrence Solomon and reports by many others about gore-bal warming [my version of global warming] in the Post have gone unnoticed by him.

It is so hard to believe that a person who could become a broadcaster and now a writer for the Post could be so ignorant of the facts. Are you sure he doesn't secretly work for CNN?

He lambastes a film by Ann McElhinney by flaming her and ignoring the plethora of inconvenient lies in Al Gore's film. The main problem with believing in global warming is that for the last 10 years there hasn't been any. In fact some well-known scientists have become "deniers" due to the inconsistencies in the data. Of course the fact that that at one time Toronto was a in a tropical climate proven by the coral fossils which appear in the bedrock has totally escaped his attention.

I think John Moore should stick to his expertise whatever it may be and leave climate change to those who actually are more knowledgeable about the subject. Or perhaps the Post should put him in the Entertainment section.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Barbara Kay: The Jewish enemy within

Barbara Kay in the National Post explains how many "Jews" in name have forsaken Judaism for the religion of "liberal left" acceptance. And in so doing become Israel-bashers and purveyors of lies.

Barbara Kay: The Jewish enemy within

Shared via AddThis

VIDEO:Canada Human Rights

VIDEO of CTV PowerPlay Canada Human? Rights Commission?

Iranian S-Elections?

Evolution / Intelligent Design

Legitimate Questions Should Be Discussed

I am reminded of how established "science" has been wrong many times before such as in the case of Piltdown man. So could it be wrong now? Or has it been perfected? Should not reasonable arguments be considered?

We have become a nation of beggars

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

[Read the article below for the researchers who studied this phenomenon.]

POINTS

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

The whole article by Terrance Corcoran follows:

Are you "shovel-ready," poised to hit the ground running, or merely desperate for cheap cash to get through the recession? If so, here's your last chance to apply to Ottawa for a piece of the massive government spending-bailout-infrastructure-stimulus operation now being prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Jan. 27 budget extravaganza.

To get you going, the National Post has created an all-purpose Stimulus Canada application document. Simply make sure your company/institution fills out the form here to get in on the action.

We're just kidding, of course, or at least we were until our satirical Stimulus Canada General Application Form was mugged by reality, which is rapidly turning out to be funnier than the fanciful idea of a government department called Stimulus Canada. To all intents and purposes, Stimulus Canada already exists.

Government money to flow, the taps are opening, deficits are no problem. The spending, as Stephen Harper said after a meeting with the premiers on Friday, will be "very significant" and there will be "very significant deficits." That could mean new spending of $20-billion and deficits of $40-billion.

Industry groups, corporate opportunists, charities, municipal politicians, arts groups, provincial premiers, tech firms, mining companies, forestry operators, banks, money lenders -- in fact, just about everybody has come forward to get in on Canada's portion of what is turning out to be a mad global government stimulus pandemic.

Each claims to have a plan or an idea that they say would produce jobs, spending, investment and activity that would get Canada through the recession and stimulate the economy.

At some point, though, the clamour of claims and calls becomes absurd, and that point looks to have been crossed the other day in the United States when porn merchant Larry Flint said the U.S. sex industry was falling on hard times, business was down 25%, and it needed a $5-billion slice of the $1.2-billion U.S. stimulus program.

And why not?

Mr. Flint has a point. It is not totally illogical for anyone to think that way. If you spend a dollar somewhere -- whether building a bridge or operating a forest company or buying a car -- it generates activity. And, after all, it's a grand old economic theory, created by John Maynard Keynes, that spending, especially government spending, rolls through the economy on a giant multiplier, piling jobs on jobs, growth on growth.

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

Educational Purposes Only

All articles quoted here are for educational purposes only. Canada-For-Truth encourages you to read the original articles on their respective sites.
We do not necessarily agree with all links posted here but we include them to bring balance to an unbalanced media.