The Jewish Problem
Say what you will about Calgary’s Aryan Nation – they recognize anti-Semitism when they see it. And they saw it last weekend pro-Hamas, anti-Israel parade.
Bernie Farber and the CJC - after, no doubt, a careful process – held a press conference today where they disclosed – four days later – “CJC exposes incitement to hatred and violence at pro-Hamas rallies”. Along with the Aryan Nation it dawned on the CJC that, perhaps, “Zionist” might be a dog whistle for “Jew”.
Of course, as Mark Steyn masterfully points out,
just for the record the CJC did not expose the “hatred and violence”. For one thing, Bernie, Warren & Co didn’t bother going to the Hamas rallies. Kathy Shaidle did, and Girl on the Right did, and Point de Bascule did, and Kate McMillan and others spread the news about what they saw. Bernie Farber said nothing. Even the great Nazi Hunting Toilet Warrior lui-meme was silent. mark steyn
Meanwhile, poor Dr. Dawg, in order to keep socialist street cred, is featuring dead Gaza babies wrapped in Hezbollah flags. Can we say “photo op”, of course we can.
No one with a speck of sense is fooled by the “anti-Israel, anti-zionist but not anti-semitic” trope. Israel is an expressly Jewish state (just as something like 50 nations in the world are expressly “Islamic”). The Aryan Nation gets it, so does Ezra.
“Les Juifs sont nos chiens!”, a bit of bilingual bile from the protests in Montreal, goes to the core of the anti-Israel mentality embraced by Hamas and supported by the protests. After all is said and done, the bulk of the population and the essence of the founding idea of Israel is Jewish. And, from the Hamas perspective, the destruction of Israel and the Jews is Job #1.
Mr. Rayyan said that, technically, Mr. Nasrallah was mistaken. “Allah changed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs, it is true, but he specifically said these apes and pigs did not have the ability to reproduce,” Mr. Rayyan said. “So it is not literally true that Jews today are descended from pigs and apes, but it is true that some of the ancestors of Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people.”I asked him the question I always ask of Hamas leaders: Could you agree to anything more than a tactical cease-fire with Israel? I felt slightly ridiculous asking: A man who believes that God every now and again transforms Jews into pigs and apes might not be the most obvious candidate for peace talks at Camp David. Mr. Rayyan answered the question as I thought he would, saying that a long-term cease-fire would be unnecessary, because it will not take long for the forces of Islam to eradicate Israel. nyt
Hamas, the Aryan Nation and Dr. Dawg have spotted the problem: the problem is the Jews.
For Hamas, its supporters and the Aryan Nation, the Jewish Problem has a solution. A final solution as it were. Dr. Dawg is more nuanced but, by his own logic, tends to support the enemies of the Jews despite imagining himself a resolute enemy of anti-Semitism.
For many centuries Christianity had a Jewish Problem. It was orthodox to believe that the Jews killed Jesus albeit with the help of the Romans. Over time – and two millennia seems a bit excessive – Christians came to recognize that the Jews did not, in fact, kill Jesus and, more importantly, even if they had it was time to follow Jesus and forgive them.
The “apes and pigs” school of Islam is incapable of such enlightenment. The Prophet did not like the Jews therefore Allah did not like the Jews and therefore the Jews are fair game.
My Canada has no room for people who believe that.
It is time to sort the sheep from the proverbial goats.
Update: I only just read this over at Terry Glavin’s. Glavin is more than able to connect the dots. (Likely why he is so intensely disliked by some sections the “progressive” left.)
Update #2: Meanwhile Girl on the Right is promoting Toronto4Israel this coming Sunday with the following challenge:
I expect to see Burny Farber and Frank Diamante out this Sunday afternoon. I want to see Michael Ignatieff out there, too. And if Warren Kinsella is back from Ottawa, I demand he be there. Time to do a little pushing back, and if it means standing side-by-side with a hater like me, tough shit. If the fight for freedom of speech in Canada has taught me nothing else, it has taught me that sometimes you have to stand next to people you wouldn’t otherwise associate with. Life is harsh – buy a helmet, dude. girl on the right
January 15th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Ah yes let’s attack CJC for doing the wrong thing…oops I mean doing the right thing…oops I mean…hell Jay you have no clue what you mean. Like your fellow CJC-CAN-DO-NO-RIGHT blatherers the need to condemn the Jewish Congress far outweighs any good judgement you have.
And what of Steyn and co? Well for journalists who use words to express points of view they are pretty piss poor at understanding simple concepts. This was a CJC press confference not a Kathy Shaidle press conference. Um so yes it was the CJC that exposed to their press conference the hatred on the streets. And they also made it pretty clear (you need to read newspapers Jay…perhaps you can tell your fellow warriors)that their material came both from their own sources and Youtube.
As for why Bernie Farber wasn’t at the rally, I guess the fact that you are not Jewish allows you and your fellow travellers to act ignorant but you see these Islamists hold their rallies on the Jewish Sabbath. Work and travel is forbidden on the Jewish Sabbath. Unless Mr. Farber and CJC staff live in downtown Toronto allowing them to walk to the rally that would be the best they could do. So it looks like they did second best. They hired videographers to film it. Ahhh but you are more interested in shaming an honourable group than you are in working with them to expose hatred. Your colours have never been more clear.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:43 am
If you’re going to over-simplify, so can I: As my mother is fond of saying, two wrongs do not make a right.
“Over time…”
You mean, the last 60 years? Because Christian opinion was definitely not so fuzzy-fuzzy when governments were sending back boatloads of Jewish refugees from Europe. What Christian continent are you talking about? Not much separated those self-righteous people from current Muslim opinion. It was abhorrent then as now, but your premise is flawed.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Is this a sign of the end of times? At the end of times, all Jews will be brought back to Israel. I have not seen such blatant, open anti-Semitism, especially in our own “tolerant” Toronto. Add Steyn’s work on demographics and the predicted growth of Islam in Western Europe. Since WWII, Jews have been relatively safe in the West, what if the West is no longer “tolerant”, where can the Jews go to find some semblance of security? Israel?
January 15th, 2009 at 9:53 am
As I said at Dawg’s place,
I think it is wrong when critics of Israel are called anti-Semites. I’d go further and say you can think the idea of Zionism was wrong and that Israel was a mistake and still not deserve that label.
You also can be someone who applies a double standard to Israel and not be an anti-Semite.
I don’t know if Dawg is a critic of Israeli state action or of Zionism per se, but he doesn’t have one ounce of anti-Semitism in him and I’ve seen him battle the real deal.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Marky Mark, the problem is that sympathy for the Palestinians so easily shades over into tacit support of Hamas and Hamas, as the Aryan Nation goons attest, is overtly anti-Semitic. Is Dawg anti-Semitic day to day, I very much doubt it and I am glad to have your confirmation. However, as a practical consequence of his sympathy for the Palestinians he gives tacit support to Hamas by demanding the Israelis halt their operations.
Mordechai, I am well aware of the Jewish Sabbath and if Bernie and the rest of the CJC want to maintain they were absent because they are observant Jews fine. However, it is not as if last Saturday’s march was an isolated act. While the Jackal was snapping picks in the boys room, real Islamists were marching in Hezbollah parades in Montreal, Israel Apartheid days on university campuses and refining the Zionists=Nazi trope.
Mordechai, the Islamists are expressly and unapologetically anti-Semitic. there are a lot of them in a network of mosques in Canada. Rather than wating time going after ineffectual neo-Nazis in their mothers’ basements I would like to see the CJC file Criminal complaints against the real hater and the people who organize these hate fests.
Stop pissing around with bogus s. 13 complaints and use the Criminal Code for criminal speech.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:30 am
The use of the term “anti-Semitism” is really being cheapened. A friend of mine in Lethbridge went to buy bagels and asked the store owner when she couldn’t find any and he said “We don’t store any of that kike food.” THAT is anti-Semitic. On the other hand, being opposed to a claim to territory based on the idea that a bunch of people think god ordered them to live in a certain place is not anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim, it’s just common sense. That idea is stupid.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Renee, the overt use of “kike” in the context you describe is nasty and discriminatory. It is not, however, a call for the extermination of the Jews and the destruction of their state. Supporting, directly or indirectly, Hamas is to support an organization which expressly calls for the destruction of Israel and whose spokesmen routinely come out with lines like “it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people.” This is expressly anti-Semitic.
And I note that while God may very well have given Israel to the Jews several thousand years ago, the British and later the UN (by Resolution 181) created the modern state of Israel.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Jay,
I tend to agree with Renee’s comment.
I do agree with you that Hamas is, among other things, Judeophobic-you can’t really argue otherwise when their Charter invokes not Jeffersonian Democracy but the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and when they target civilians and then dance in the streets, handing out “sweets” to children no less, each time they succeed in mass murder.
And I believe they have free will and we can’t hold Israel responsible for what they do.
But the converse applies as well-if Israel crosses the line with its actions then it too has free will and is responsible for its actions.
The problem is political. Most in the Arab world view Israel as an alien Western creation that resulted from millenia of Christian anti-Semitism and then centuries of European nationalism that led to the mass murder of European Jews. They feel they have been colonized. They also point to Israel’s continued settlement of the ‘67 lands as evidence that Israel itself has never really accepted a two state solution.
While Israel has counter arguments galore, the inability of the parties to meaningfully engage on the core issues is what perpetuates the conflict.
I don’t think it is right to label someone sympathetic to the Arab or Palestinian side as anti-Semitic even if Hamas itself is anti-Semitic. That’s like saying that if you were pro-US in the Cold War in the early ‘60’s that you were making common cause with segregationists and therefore were a racist.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Jay,
I disagree with your response to Renee. Calling someone a “kike” is clear anti-Semitism. Saying that “the Jews control the World” and similar arguments meet the test for classical anti-Semitism.
Your examples re: Hamas represent anti-Semitism as well.
But if someone honestly believes that proceeding with a military campaign that will lead to hundreds of civilian deaths is immoral and contrary to international law, that isn’t anti-Semitism. It may constitute holding Israel to a standard not applicable to any other country, but it still isn’t anti-Semitism.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Jay, you can’t whistle and suck at the same time. Farber and CJC did send the materials to police. And what did they get for their efforts? Well just check with your friend Ezra Lerant, more crap thrown in their face.
Uh uh , Mordechai has you pegged on this. CJC can do no right. Where are your critical words for B’nai Brith or SImon Wiesenthal? They are not at these Islamist rallies either. Hell all they do is issue press releases!! At least CJC is doing something and have garnered national attention for it. Stop looking for bad and support their work. My Daddy use to say you will get more birds with honey than vinegar…wise words you should think about.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Obviously Jay’s on-going vilification of the CJC, and his claim that using the word “kike” isn’t anti-Semitic, throws into question any accusations of that nature that he might throw at others. Just sayin’.
“Reeves,” I dare you to uncloak. If you do, you’ll have my Statement of Claim within 24 hours, you lying coward. Jay, do you really want to facilitate libel?
January 15th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Gus – what “materials” did the CJC send to the police? And when?
January 15th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Dawg, which part of “nasty and discriminatory” says the use of the word “kike” is not anti-Semitic? It clearly is. But, I should think it is pretty obvious, that there is a difference of degree and, I suspect, kind between that slur and a call to put the Jews in the ovens. Both are dispicable, one may very well breach the Criminal Code.
As to Reeves comment, a bit over the top but on the order of the various people who accused me (and other speechies) of supporting neo-Nazis when, in fact, I was supporting free speech.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Craig go onto the CJC site http://www.cjc.ca its all there. They sent the video they previewed at their press conference yesterday. The video can also bee seen on their site. BTW “kike” is about as filled with Jew-hatred as you can get. It is the height of anti-Semitic namecalling.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Thanks for the clearheaded post, Jay.
I prefer to spell the term as “antisemitism”. Why capitalize the S unless you really believe what the 19th century racial theorists that coined the term believed: that we can draw on the analogy of the Semitic language family to define a distinctive Semitic race…. In which case, you have to tolerate all the naive nonsense from Arabs who protest “how can I be anti-Semitic; I AM a Semite”.
FWIW, Israel is a multilingual and multiracial Jewish nation, it seems to me. It is defined primarily by its Jewish high culture and that culture’s secular offshoots.
So what is antisemitism then? It is not a kind of racism like other forms of racism. Common prejudices against Arabs, say, for being tribal, barbarous, ethically stupid, and economically and militiarily incompetent, are not the kind of prejudices focussed on the “dirty Jew” who is devious, pushy, smart, succssful in an underhanded way. Antisemitism, it seems to me, was orginally founded on resentment of Jewish strength, not weakness, of Jewish firstness in the discovery and elaboration of the powerful monotheist revolution, the ethical revolution which moves humanity beyond invoking or championing any one great God to defining God as a universal Being in whom all peoples share, though the “chosen people” have a particular role in discovering and elaborating the nature of this universal Being. It is the start of a high culture focussed on a universal humanity (though by necessity elaborating this understanding from a particular historical perspective). Antisemitism is resentment of such firstness in the elaboration of universal truths, of historically-proven success, etc. Anti-Americanism today is almost the same thing.
Thus, one might want to argue that one (like Dawg) may not be particularly anti-Jewish, but still see in his thinking the signs of antisemitism. Similarly, all those stuck naively on the paradoxes of distinguishing antisemitism from anti-Zionism need to consider how people express anti-Zionism: if the resentment is of Israel’s success, its military or economic power, its willingess to go first in risky reworkings of the post-UN international order (its revelation of the bankrupt fantasy that the UN can end war and bring in some new one-world Utopia), its presumed conspiracy with the powers that be in the West, then anti-Zionism is just a new form of antisemitism (as most of it is, I think). Israel is now an established reality that a responsible Arab government would respect and negotiate with based on its present geography and powers, as realistic governments always have when negotiating with neighboring powers; that people think they can forever encourage the Palestinians to martyr themselves in order to turn back the clock to 67 or 48 or 21 or whenever is a little mindblowing: it is resentment of the course that history has taken in presenting us with winners and losers, proving some kinds of nations succesful (and hence attuned to some human truth) and others political-religious entities and Utopian fantasies less successful; in short, it is antisemitism, though arguably not particularly anti-Jewish if we understand “Jewish” in sufficiently narrow terms. (Still, antsemitism is such a loaded term I would prefer to speak of Judeophobia, the fear of firstness.)
January 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Isn’t Dawg simply taking a stand against mass civilian casualties as a result of Israel’s actions against Hamas?
January 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
One quibble with the post is the question of who killed Jesus.
Yes, the mark of a true Christian is one who has outgrown his Judeophobia. But I don’t see how this outgrowing is incompatible with recognizing that it was the Jews who killed Jesus. One cannot be a Christian unless one believes all of humanity, including the Jews, share equally in the sin of sacrificial violence. One cannot be a good Christian if one does not recognize that Jesus was Jewish as were those followers who turned and scapegoated him in a moment of crisis.
Of course Jay only meant to refer to the mindless scapegoating of the Jews by “Christians”, but I thought it would be worth mentioning this because there is a similar lesson for Muslims: Islam comes after Judaism and Christianity and is thus in a position of proclaiming its truth that is necessarily antagonistic to those monotheist religions that came previously. I don’t see how one can be a sincere Muslim if one doesn’t believe that Islam is both the original truth and the final divine revelation into it. On the other hand, I don’t see how one can believe in Islam if it involves or is dependent on a way of scapegoating Jews and Christians (or apostates) for not leaving their faiths and joining Islam, because we can now see beyond the lies of scapegoating. So there is a huge intellectual challenge there for the sincere Muslim to tell us why Islam is true. To my mind, that challenge has so far met with failure. However, while needing to point out my doubts about the “truth” of that religious-political ideology/heresy, I think I do need to remain open to the possibility that the sincere Muslim may yet do what the successful Christian has done: explain to me the anti-Jewish origins of his faith in terms of a universal truth that we can both hold without being dogmatically anti-Jewish or anti-Christian.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
remove my post. to keep everyone happy.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Done Stephen…
January 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
But I don’t see how this outgrowing is incompatible with recognizing that it was the Jews who killed Jesus.
This is not, repeat, NOT, anti-Semitic. Right? But I am, because I oppose the slaughter of civilians in Gaza. According to Jay Currie, anyway.
Time to do a little pushing back, and if it means standing side-by-side with a hater like me, tough shit.
Gosh—does that mean anyone expressing a pro-Israel point of view believes that National Aboriginal day is the one day out of 365 when Native fathers aren’t f*****g their daughters? I don’t see a lot of daylight there, Jay. Pro-Israeli demonstrators are obviously anti-Native racists. By your logic, anyway.
You have succeeded in raising hypocrisy to an art form. Congratulations.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Nice catch on the life buoy Marky Mark threw you Dawg.
I gather Girl on the Right will be wearing her helmet on the off chance that a contingent of pro-Israeli Canadian aboriginals happen by. However, if she sudddenly lets out a cry of “Aboriginals are our dogs.” I expect she will be pretty effectively shushed and possibly even shunned.
Which would not happen at a pro-Palestinian rally regardless of what was said about the Jews ‘cause the castigating the Jews is the very point of the rally.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Sigh.
The idea that a State be created to serve as a refuge for Jewish Europeans who, despite their best efforts to be citizens of their “host” countries, were not accepted as equals, was in essence an idea of the Left. And the Jews who chose to settle there were very much steeped in the Left-think of the founding Labor Party, equality for women, kibbutzes, etc. Zionism was a secular idea and its founder was a secular assimilated man who wished to be viewed as a Jewish citizen of his country who came to the realization that that would never occur.
And the people in Europe responsible for the persecution of Jews were, on the whole, on the right-first the persecution was based in religion (often State religion) and then it came from the nationalist right.
The creation of the State of Israel was the result of the actions of the United Nations-a then new creation of people on the Left like FDR-again, the UN was hardly a creature of the Right.
So this idea that the Left has a history of anti-Semitism is false.
In recent years Israel has been governed more from the Right and it has allied itself with neo-conservatives in the US. At the same time, Israeli policy has contributed (albeit not as the sole factor) to (and, in the minds of many, has served as the proximate cause of) mass misery for the Palestinians.
Given that is the Left that is committed to basic values such as justice, equality and fairness, it shouldn’t be a surprise that many people on the Left are concerned about the plight of the Palestinians—a plight that has been perpetuated and has intensified over the decades.
Yes-not all of that is the fault of Israel-agreed for sure-but there should be no shame in speaking up for those who are suffering. And there should be no false charges of anti-Semitism.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:11 am
“This is not, repeat, NOT, anti-Semitic. Right?”
Maybe, maybe not. My point was that it need not be antisemitic to say “the Jews killed Jesus”
Of course it can be a sign of antisemitism to blame the event of the scapegoating of Jesus not on the general human capacity for such evil (which in this particular historical event, as with any event, necessarily involved particular people(s), in this case the Jews and Romans) but on a uniquely Jewish evil. But this is not the only way to interpret the event.
What needs to be recognized is that we draw our ethical revelations in the first place not from some abstract metaphysics where all people can be treated “equally”, on the same philosophical level, but from particular historical events that do not and cannot involve all of humanity equally. It is the nature of events that they involve particular people, though their revelatory power may be universal. (E.g. I don’t have to be French or CHinese to understand the revelations into a universal humanity one can find in French or Chinese literature. The moral of the story may be universal, but the story has to be about particular people with all their differences from me.)
The Christian (and Islamic) revelations necessarily are a response to Jewish priority in events that unfold the monotheist tradition. Are we thus to write CHristianity and Islam off as forever and inevitably antagonistic to Judaism and Jews?
My point was not to call you antisemitic. I am in no position to judge. It was to point out that it is inevitable that we all, Jews and Others, have to respond to a certain Jewish priority (and continuing centrality) in Western history. It is all too easy to fall into a resentful attitude to this (as I feel many, including many Jews, do towards Israel’s unique modernity in the Middle East, its post-Holocaust symbolic centrality in the West, and its military success.) Resentment is a necessary quality of our universal humanity. But we don’t transcend any particular resentments by pretending the historical events that have created, say, a symbolic Jewish centrality or priority need not trouble us. We, in the West, all have no choice but to think and talk with signs (the product of events) that can be given an antisemitic valence. We cannot make any sense of Western history by ignoring the Jews.
I take it that the only thing we can be sure about Jesus’ life is that he existed, lived among Jews, and was crucified. The Christian revelation is meaningless if we are to believe it was merely the Romans who were responsible for this death. It is precisely the feeling of guilt among his Jewish followers that makes the new faith in his resurrection necessary. Christianity argues that we are all marked by the evil that would offer up a scapegoat in a time of crisis. Thus one can say, yes, there was a particular historical event that necessarily included Jews and Jesus and the crucifixion. One can interpret this with the antisemitic “the Jews killed Jesus”, but it is also possible for a Christian to interpret this event in a way that treats Jewish humanity in this event as an instance of a universal human sin and still say, humbly, “the Jews killed Jesus”, i.e. Jesus’ own people/we all commit the violence whose operations Jesus revealed – invoking not a particular Jewish evil but the universality of human sin, as revealed to us in a necessarily particular event. That is what the Christian who transcends antisemitism surely has to see.
It is no good to think we can overcome antisemitism by writing off all of Christianity just because Christianity has no choice but to remember that Jews killed Jesus. Similarly, I would argue (as I have tried before) that the left begins from a place of antisemitism and will always carry that mark of its origins with it, but one on the left does not have to end there. One can transcend if we don’t forget, e.g., Marx’s (and others’) assimilation of the Jew with the evil interests of money, the antisemitic conspiracy theories that attended the French Revolution, etc. We don’t overcome problematic beginnings by denying we have them but by recognizing them in a light that is redeeming.
Sorry if I am going on, but I thought it was important to try and clarify…
January 16th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Jay, you of course have no answer for Gus Williams. Jay, while there are many things with which you and I disagree, on Israel’s right to defend itself we are of one mind. Except your decision to parrot Ezra Levant’s ridiculous obsession with Bernie Farber is truly disappointing.
Check Levant’s latest madcap ravings on CJC. The Jewish Congress for better or worse is to date the only organization anywhere in North America it seems to publically expose the anti-Semitism prevalent at pro-Hamas rallies. Ezra is more focused on finding stupid and nonsensical ways to discredit CJC than to fight the real fight. Your quoting his nonsense and going along with his name-calling of Bernie Farber demeans your credibility. Get out of Ezra’s sewer no need for you to wallow in the same mud as this bully.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:52 am
So Dr. Dawg and others cannot support the innocent people of Palestine without tacitly condoning Hamas and therefore being anti-semitic, but you can defend freedom of speech without supporting neo-Nazism? Makes sense to me.
January 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Jay,
This is what I mean—I still think you owe Dr. Dawg an apology—the sort of thing you’re describing should be directed at anonymous commenters who attempt to hijack blogs to spread filth in the guise of anti-Israel statements:
http://myblahg.com/?p=3000
January 18th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Just read the thread Marky Mark – nothing subtle about arthur decco and there never has been. If Robert wants to publish that sort of weasel worded anti-Semitism on his blog it is entirely his call. But by doing so he opens himself to the charge of condoning it.
Mordechai, quick question, do you have any evidence that the CJC sent its own videographers to the pro-Hamas rally last Saturday. I have at least one commentor who has stated they took his footage off You-tube without permission or credit and used it at the press conference.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Exactly-so why go after Dr. Dawg who characterizes this sort of speech as the “real deal” and treat him as if he were someone who condones hatred?
January 18th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Marky Mark, one shades into the other. Unfortunately.
The problem with the left making common cause with Hamas supporters to protest against Israeli conduct is that the left is tainted with the inherent anti-Semitism of Hamas.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:40 am
“Mordechai, quick question, do you have any evidence that the CJC sent its own videographers to the pro-Hamas rally last Saturday. ”
Yes I heard Farber say it on a clip played 3 times on radio. He said they used some footage that was on you tube but that the majority of footage was shot by their own people, Jay just go on the CJC site they have the video up …you can see that most of it is professionally done including the pics. BTW I believe anything on you tube is fair game since it is in the public domain…otherwise no one would be able to send you tube clips to anyone.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I don’t know what evidence Mordechai may have but I for one heard Mr. Farber say on CFRB in Toronto that the video at the press conference came from 2 sources, their own people who they sent down and YOUTUBE.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Looks like you owe Farber and CJC yet another apology Jay.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Who were “the people” Mordechai?
And there is no question they popped video off You-tube and did not show up themselves. I’d call it a push at best.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:59 am
Jay if you are calling Farber a liar don’t be a coward do it here or back off. If you have a question about what he said, call him…I thought I read here somewhere that you have done so in the past. Do you have any reason to belive he lied to the media? That would be dumb since it is so easily provable and I don’t think Farber is dumb.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Farber isn’t dumb, Jay not so much….anyone who has half an understanding of video can tell what’s from you tube and what was professionally taken. Any decent journalist would pounce on Farber if anyone were to prove he lied about how he took the video. Jay stop squriming. If you have proof that Farber lied show it here. If you don’t you are a man of integrity and we here would expect you to do the right thing.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:58 am
Silence is golden huh Jay?
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Very disappointing Mr. Currie,Your inegrity metre has hit an all time low.