Why I Will Support John Tory for Mayor of Toronto

In two weeks, Toronto will vote for a new mayor and council.  It's been a tumultuous four years in Toronto's municipal politics, to say the least.  Four years ago, Rob Ford coasted to victory on a platform of respect for taxpayers' dollars, using the slogan, "stop the gravy train".  I was one of the many people who voted for Ford because I was tired of the reckless spending, the pandering to unions and special interest groups, and the general inability of city politicians to solve the city's problems.  I continued to support him well into his mandate because he seemed to be doing good things for the city.  He contracted out garbage west of Yonge St.; he persuaded the province to declare the TTC an essential service so that riders would never again have to go through another transit strike; and perhaps most importantly, he didn't cave in to the relentless opposition of left-wing councillors, public sector unions and the myriad of special interest groups - you know, the folks that have been leading Toronto to ruin.  But then of course came the videos - clips of our mayor smoking crack, being drunk, spewing racist and homophobic comments, and basically acting like a complete idiot - not something we want in a mayor.  Eventually, Fords antics were too much for me and I decided that I would no longer support him.  At the end of the day, Rob Ford had simply replaced the leftists' gravy train with a giant circus tent that enveloped the whole of Toronto, making it a laughingstock both here in Canada and around the world.  Fortunately, the upcoming election gives us the chance to change this.

Olivia Chow and Doug Ford: Polar Opposites Who Will Both Steer Toronto in the Wrong Direction

Early on in the campaign, it seemed that leftist candidate Olivia Chow would win by a landslide.  Thank goodness Torontonians have been thinking differently lately.  Voting in Chow as mayor would basically mean a return to the gravy train - the train that Toronto voters sought to derail by voting in Rob Ford.  Chow represents the culture of reckless spending and pandering to unions and other special interest groups that prevailed during the dark days of David Miller's mayoralty.  Electing her would mean a return to those dark days, because the only thing Chow is good at is spending taxpayers' dollars.  How would she spend them, you might ask?  She would spend them on her friends of course - the unions, the starving artists, the unemployable professional protestors that frequent City Hall, and so forth.

In contrast, Doug Ford, who has recently taken Rob's place in the campaign after Rob was diagnosed with cancer, represents a continuation of the circus that has become Toronto politics.  Yes, I understand that it wasn't him in those clips smoking crack or being drunk, but he has been the mayor's staunchest defender.  He is the mayor's brother, after all.  Still, if your own flesh and blood can't tell you that the way you're behaving is wrong, then who can?  Moreover, Doug shares the same problem as his brother in being a very divisive politician who can't work with anyone who thinks differently than him.

John Tory - For Those Who Don't Want to Choose Between the Circus Tent or the Gravy Train



Toronto does not need a return to the gravy train, nor does it need to continue hosting the Ford brothers' circus act.  What Toronto needs is a mayor that is going to unite the city; someone who doesn't just serve downtown or the suburbs; someone who is not a die-hard leftist or a hardcore conservative; and someone who can work with the city's other politicians, left, right and centre.  I believe that John Tory is that someone - or at least, he's the closest person there is that has any chance of winning this election.

During the campaign, Tory has been the only candidate to win the support of politicians on both the right and the left, whereas only left-wing politicians have endorsed Chow and no major politicians that I can think of have publicly endorsed Ford.  More importantly, polls show that John Tory has strong support from voters in all parts of Toronto, as opposed to Chow and Ford whose support comes mainly from downtown and the suburbs respectively.  As Tory's campaign has gained momentum, so has criticism of him and his platform.  His two main rivals have pointed out, for example, that Tory has no experience in municipal office.  But I honestly think that's a good thing because many of the folks who do have experience in municipal office, like Chow and Ford, are not part of the solution; they're part of the problem.

My point is that Toronto needs someone new at the helm.  Someone who will move Toronto forward rather than to the right or to the left (I believe Tory himself used similar words to describe his platform).  I just hope that Tory can keep the momentum going for the last two weeks of the campaign.  Unfortunately, he has a history of losing.  He could have been our mayor in 2003, but Toronto voters rejected him in favour of David Miller.  He could have been Ontario's premier in 2007, but lost that election as well.  Poor John Tory has never been given a chance to lead.  Too bad, because I think if he were given that chance, he would do a decent job.  Fortunately, two weeks from now, we can give him that chance.  Let's make up for the mistakes of 2003 and 2007 and give John Tory the opportunity to move Toronto forward.  

  

         

My Message to Scotland: Vote Yes to Independence. Let the Sun Set on the British Empire

In just a few hours, Scots will have the chance to do what their ancestors at the Battle of Bannockburn did seven hundred years ago: Win their nation's independence.  Fortunately this time, bloodshed is highly unlikely.  In a great exercise in democracy, Scots have been granted the right to choose their country's fate.  It's a right that most peoples seeking self-determination around the world can only dream of.  The fight for Scotland's future is very reminiscent of a struggle that I know all too well about as a Canadian: the question of Quebec's status.  Quebec has twice voted against independence.  The last referendum was in 1995, when I was still a teenager.  I can still remember my parents and I going to a massive rally in Toronto calling on Quebec to stay in Canada.  In my high school, we were even asked by our homeroom teacher to sign a petition calling on Quebec to vote against separation.  I signed that petition, but if I had the chance to do it all over again, I would not have signed it, nor would I have attended the rally in Toronto in 1995.  Quite the opposite.  I would have joined the campaign in favour of an independent Quebec, and I feel that should there be another referendum on the question of the province's status, I will definitely be on the side of the sovereigntists, which is why I am now on the side of those in Scotland who seek to regain their country's independence.

I have listened to the predictable arguments of those against Scottish independence.  They are very similar to the ones always used by those who are against independence for Quebec and they are almost all about the economy.  I'm not going to say that the "No" campaigners in Scotland are wrong about the economic consequences of Scottish independence any more than I would try to contradict the similar arguments of the federalist camp in Canada.  The truth is that there probably will be significant economic consequences for Scotland if they choose independence, just as their would be for Quebec if they decided at some point to go it alone.  But since when has freedom ever been free?  Indeed, there is always a price to pay when a people seek freedom.  It is usually paid in blood rather than money, and I would say that any economic costs borne by Scots after a "Yes" vote pale in comparison to the sacrifice made by their ancestors who bled on the battlefield of Bannockburn and the many other battlefields on which Scots gave their lives for their country's freedom.  Moreover, I cannot think of too many examples in which a newly independent country did not struggle during its first years of sovereignty.  So yes, in the short run there probably will be consequences for Scots to bear after they have voted for independence.  But in the long run, they will find that they made the right decision.

The Tyranny of the English Majority

It is true that way back in 1707, the Scottish parliament at the time decided to dissolve itself and delegate legislative power over Scotland country to Westminster in what is now called the Union of the Parliaments, so there was a degree of choice involved when the country joined the emerging British Empire - but only to a limited extent.  The Union of the Parliaments occurred well before universal suffrage; well before legislatures were elected by the masses rather than just by white male land-owners.  Then again, Scotland's accession to the British Empire was much more legitimate than that of Wales or Ireland, both of which were countries conquered by the English.  By the early 20th century, after centuries of bloodshed, most of Ireland managed to free itself from the yoke of British imperialism.  But Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remain part of the United Kingdom, and they are all politically and economically dominated by the English.  Indeed, English domination has always been at the core of the British Empire and continues to be today.

Whatever Scotland gained from its domination at the hands of England will never make up for what it lost.  Centuries of English hegemony have made Scotland's Gaelic language nearly extinct.  The country's culture has become little more than a sideshow in the British melting pot.  And although Scotland's economy has developed significantly since the emergence of the British Empire, the country remains poor compared to England, even as oil has been pumping out of the Shetland Islands.  But instead of enriching Scotland, this oil has largely gone to where most precious resources in the U.K. have gone over the centuries: into the hands of the English.  The fact that Scotland and the other countries in the U.K. have gotten the short end of the stick while England has taken the bulk of the wealth and power shouldn't be a surprise, however, because after all, the United Kingdom, though largely a product of conquest, is a democracy, and in a democracy the majority rules.  So who is the majority in the U.K.?  Why the English of course!  So just as Quebec has been historically dominated by Canada's English-speaking majority, so too have the Scots, Welsh and Irish been dominated by the U.K.'s English majority.  In fact, Scotland and the other smaller countries of the U.K. are in an even worse situation because even together, they don't make up a very large counter-weight against England, whereas Quebec is Canada's second-most populous province and has been able to use its population's voting power to force significant concessions from the English-speaking majority, giving the province more power over its affairs and allowing it to reaffirm its distinct French identity.  It's time that Scotland said no to this tyranny of the English majority by saying "Yes" to independence.

Multinational Empires Have no Place in This World

The United Kingdom is what I often call a multinational empire - a country composed of two or more large ethno-national groups, but usually dominated by just one of them.  The U.K. is composed of four main national groups, but controlled overwhelmingly by one - the English.  It's story is the story of most multinational empires.  It begins when one group of people become so powerful that they conquer the territories of other peoples to eventually form an empire.  Rome, which was the greatest empire of the ancient world, began with the small Roman republic.  But of course, that republic grew more powerful, swallowed the territory of its rivals, and became an empire that stretched across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.  It contained countless ethnic, linguistic and religious groups, though control remained firmly in the hands of the empire's founders, the Latin speakers of the Italian peninsula.  But of course, all empires eventually come to an end, as did the Roman Empire, which slowly lost control over the territories it had conquered until Rome itself finally ceased to exist as a state.  Fast forward centuries later to when England began to grow in wealth and power until she took control of her neighbours to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, which in turn spread throughout the globe conquering other peoples and their territory to forge the British Empire.  By the mid-20th century, the British Empire was a shell of its former self.  The British no longer hold vast territories overseas.  They have lost their empire.  And now, just as Rome itself was erased as a state, I believe so too will the British state cease to exist.  Whether this happens as a result of the Scottish referendum, or happens later on, it will almost definitely happen.  In fact, I believe that eventually all multinational empires, be they Canada, the Russian Federation or even the great United States of America, will come to an end.  It's just a question of when.  

     

Official Bilingualism is Good for Israel

Last week, I happened to come across an opinion piece on ynetnews.com that argued against a law proposing the annulment of Arabic as an official language in Israel (see: Let Israel's Arabs and their language be).  Supposedly, this bill "…will contribute to the social cohesion in the State of Israel and to the construction of the collective identity necessary for forming mutual trust in the society and preserving the values of democracy."  But the author argues that such a measure, if taken, will do the exact opposite by imposing the Hebrew language on the country's Arab minority.  Personally, I have mixed feelings about this issue.

Part of me believes that it would be hypocrisy for Israeli Arabs to accuse the country's government of trying to impose Hebrew on them, because that's exactly what their ancestors did to most of the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa during the Muslim Arab conquests of centuries past.  If anything, the Israeli government would simply be taking a step towards restoring the country's Hebrew heritage by reaffirming the language's supremacy in the State of Israel.  Moreover, I am usually of the opinion that if someone intends to live in a country in which the majority speaks a language that is different from his or her own, he or she must learn that language, no questions asked.  This is philosophy that I apply to immigrants who come to live in Canada, where I reside.  In Canada, our official languages are English and French.  So when someone comes to live here, they should be expected to begin learning one of these languages from day one.  If they refuse to do this, then they should pack up and go back to wherever it is they came from.  But for me, applying the same principle to Arabic speakers in Israel that I apply to new immigrants who come to live in Canada just doesn't make sense.  Why?  Because for the most part, Israel's Arabic speakers are hardly immigrants.  Many if not most of them have lived in Israel for generations, well before Jews began returning to their ancestral homeland.  Yes, it's true that Israel's Arabs are mostly a foreign population - the result of the aforementioned Muslim Arab conquests.  However, if we the Jewish majority try to impose our Hebrew language on the country's Arab minority, then we will be no better than the conquerors of the past who tried to impose their languages on us.

Official Bilingualism in Israel Should be Strengthened, Not Weakened

I am opposed to any efforts by Israel's leaders to try to reduce the status of Arabic versus Hebrew.  In fact, I would advocate strengthening Israel's status as a bilingual country, using Canada as a model.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with Canada's official languages policy, you may be interested to know that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which resembles Israel's Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, enshrines the equal status of English and French in all national affairs.  This linguistic equality is further enshrined in Canada's Official Languages Act.  Indeed, Canada's laws on the use of both official languages can be quite strict.  For instance, if a product is not packaged with both English and French present, it is not allowed to be sold in Canada - and this applies to everything from a high-definition TV to something as small as the bottle of water that you purchase at a convenience store.  

Anyone who has travelled around Israel, as I have, knows that the country has already made great strides towards bilingualism.  There are signs in both Hebrew and Arabic everywhere, and Arabic does appear alongside Hebrew on some products sold in Israel, including that bottle of water.  We're certainly well ahead of other countries in the Middle East when it comes to respecting the languages of minority populations.  However, Israel still lags well behind Canada and other bilingual and multilingual jurisdictions.  We don't have a comprehensive official languages act, like Canada does, nor is the equality of Hebrew and Arabic enshrined in our Basic Laws - and I believe that this has to change.

The Case for Bilingualism in Israel

Now some of you folks reading this might ask me, why should we do even more than we already do to accommodate the Arabs when all they want to do is kill us?  My short answer is that strengthening and enshrining official bilingualism in Israel is not really about accommodating the Arabs, but rather accepting reality - the reality that one fifth of Israel's population speak Arabic as their first language; the reality that Arabic is the lingua franca of almost the entire Middle Eastern region of which Israel is a part; and the reality that whether the Jewish majority in Israel likes it or not, the Arabs and their language are part of Israel's heritage.  If we ignore this reality, we are deluding ourselves.  

So I think it's time that Israel's leaders accepted this reality and do what is necessary to make the country as fully bilingual in Hebrew and Arabic as possible.  This means enshrining the equality of both languages in law, enacting new measures to ensure the right of all of Israel's citizens to receive government services in both Hebrew and Arabic wherever they may be, and perhaps most importantly, making sure that Israelis themselves are fluently bilingual in both languages.  Indeed, I have met many Arabs in Israel who have taken the time to become fluent in Hebrew, yet I don't seem to find too many Jews who have taken the time to learn Arabic, unless of course they or their parents immigrated to Israel from a country in which Arabic is the primary language.  As a Jew, I've always felt bad about this double standard, which is why I took it upon myself to study the Arabic language and why I believe that every Israeli Jew should strive to learn the language of our Arab citizens, just as they make the effort to learn the language of their Jewish fellow citizens.

In fact, I would argue that official bilingualism in Israel makes even more sense than it does in Canada, because Israel is such a small country where Hebrew and Arabic speakers are very close to each other, while Canada is incredibly large and English and French speakers tend to be concentrated in certain regions that are often far away from one another.  In other words, bilingualism is much more attainable in Israel than it is in Canada, because let's face it; Jews and Arabs run into each other in Israel all the time, whereas Anglophones and Francophones in Canada do not.              

Building Israel in Judea and Samaria is the Best Response to Continued Palestinian Terrorism

Earlier this week, Israel announced that around 400 hectares of land in the Gush Etzion area of Judea and Samaria, a.k.a the West Bank, would be nationalized (see: Israel recognizes 4,000 dunam in Gush Etzion as state land).  Predictably, members of the international community protested, because unfortunately, the international consensus is that Jews should not live in their ancestral homeland.  Today, word also got out in the press that Israel plans to build just under three hundred new homes in the community of Elkana, located in the northwest of the so-called West Bank (see: Israel issues tenders for 283 homes in West Bank settlement).  I am actually very happy with these announcements because I believe that continuing to build Israel's presence in its Biblical homeland is a proper, Zionist response to the Palestinians' continuing terrorism.

Palestinians Shoot, Israel Builds

The bias against Israel's growing communities in Judea and Samaria is clearly outlined in the second article cited above.  Indeed, the article calls Israel's decision to nationalize land in Gush Etzion the country's "biggest land grab on Palestinian territory in three decades".  Personally, the use of the term "land grab" really upsets me, as does the article's defining Biblical Jewish land as "Palestinian territory".  Just once, I would love to see one major press outlet or world leader mention the land grab that the Arabs made centuries ago when they marched out of their native Arabian peninsula to conquer nearly the entire Middle East and northern Africa.  But believe me, I'm not holding my breath for this.  If Israel is grabbing land, it is simply grabbing it back from Arab conquerors.  Jews have every right to live in their ancestral homeland.  They have every right to establish communities there and rebuild the Jewish presence in the land that has been gone for centuries.  Furthermore, it is only fitting that Israel nationalize the territory in Gush Etzion as it was on this very land that three innocent Jewish teenagers were kidnapped and subsequently murdered in cold blood by Hamas terrorists.  Let this reclamation of Jewish land be a lesson to these terrorists and let the people of Israel say to them: Every time you shoot at us, injure us, or kill us, we will respond by continuing to build up our communities in the land of our ancestors.

Forget World Opinion!

Shortly after Israel announced its nationalization of land in Gush Etzion, one of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's coalition partners, Yair Lapid, who now serves as Minister of Finance, protested the decision, implying that it made Israel look bad in the eyes of world, especially in regards to the country's relations with the U.S. (see: Lapid: West Bank land seizure harms Israel).  My response to such concerns is simply to forget about what the rest of the world thinks.  History has shown that whatever Israel does, it is condemned.  The most recent example of this is, of course, the latest conflict in the Gaza Strip, where Israel took great strides to prevent the deaths of Palestinian civilians, even as terrorists shot rockets at Israel from civilian structures, including private homes, schools and hospitals.  But regardless of Israel's efforts to protect Palestinian civilians, the country was still condemned time and time again by the international community, the world press and countless anti-Israel and antisemitic protestors.  Let's face it; people just hate Israel and hate Jews, and nothing Israel does or doesn't do will change that.      

Gaza Ceasefire: Did Netanyahu Make the Right Call?

The latest war in the Gaza Strip has finally ended, or so it would seem.  After nearly a dozen failed ceasefires, all of which were broken by the terrorists in Gaza firing rockets into Israel, this latest cessation of hostilities seems to be holding - much to the dismay of many Israelis, including myself, who wanted Netanyahu's government to finish off Hamas and the rest of the terrorist bunch in Gaza once and for all.  Immediately after the ceasefire was announced, polls showed that support for Netanyahu, who we Israelis sometimes call "Bibi", had taken a nosedive (see: Prime Minister's support plummets as fighting ends).  For those of you who have read my previous blogs regarding Israel's latest scuffle with terrorists in the Gaza Strip, you know that I favoured military action until every last vestige of terrorism in the coastal enclave was eliminated.

Gaza's Terrorists Choose Their Rockets Over Their People's Well-Being

Netanyahu: Don't Listen to Bleeding Heart Liberals Like Obama and Kerry.  Stay the Course

Hamas and All Other Terrorists in Israel's Midst Must be Exterminated

After hearing about Bibi's sudden loss of support, I think it's safe to say that many Israelis thought the same way that I did.  But even though I'm not happy that Netanyahu has allowed Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the other terrorist scumbags in Gaza to survive, I still trust his judgement because he is the only person who can lead Israel in the current situation.

In Netanyahu I Trust

I've always thought of Bibi as Israel's own Winston Churchill, who also consistently and correctly warned the international community about the clear and present dangers of the time - and who was all too often ignored in very much the same way that leaders in the international community have ignored Netanyahu over the years.  People should know by now that they ignore Bibi at their own peril.  In fact, if we had heeded his warnings, Hamas and company wouldn't be in control of the Gaza Strip and Israel would not have lost many of its own civilians and soldiers trying to stop them from pelting the country with rockets up until now.  So even though I and many other Israelis may disagree with his decision to end our assault on Gaza's terrorists, we should nevertheless give him the benefit of the doubt.  I continue to place my trust in Netanyahu and I hope that my fellow Israelis will do so as well.  After all, he's been right so many times already, so it's very difficult not to trust in him. 

 

The Great Dog Debate

Today, I read a piece by The Toronto Star's Joe Fiorito discussing a potential solution to the problem of man's best friend doing their business on Toronto's lawns (see: Dogs have Toronto yards going to waste).  In his article, Fiorito recommends that dog owners in Toronto be required to walk their dogs alongside the curb to prevent them from urinating or defecating on the city's lawns.  For those of you who live in Toronto or any other big city where there are both a lot of people and a lot of dogs, you've probably had the misfortune of stepping in dog feces at least once or twice.  And if you're one of the folks in Toronto who is lucky enough to own a home with a lawn despite this city's crazy home prices, then chances are you've probably caught a dog owner, or two, or more using your delicately manicured grass for Fido to relieve himself.  Oh the frustration!  But of course, this frustration also exists amongst dog owners.

I am a dog owner myself and I too am frustrated by the behaviour of some of my fellow dog owners.  In fact, whenever I happen to step in dog poop, it's usually when I'm walking my own dog.  Believe me, I and many other dog owners who are responsible and pick up after their pets do not like seeing our beautiful lawns and parks fouled by dog waste any more than people who don't have dogs do.  So for those of you dog owners who think you don't have to pick up after your four-legged friends, my message to you is either wise up or don't own a dog because you're giving all of us dog owners a bad name.

Still, I believe that dog owners like myself have legitimate grievances that people who don't own dogs fail to consider.  For example, like a growing number of dog owners, I do not live in a single family home with a fenced yard.  Instead, I live in a condo on the 8th floor of a 20-story building.  And although my dog lives a happy life with me, not having my own personal, private lawn often means that my dog has to do her business outside on someone else's lawn.  This is a fact of life for many dog owners who happen to live in multi-unit buildings.  And it just isn't practical to expect everyone who owns a dog to have a home with a fenced yard, especially in Toronto where housing prices are through the roof.  Now of course, when my dog defecates, I pick it up, but there's nothing I can do when my dog needs to urinate.  Yes, I understand that dog urine can ruin a lawn and leave yellow stains on the grass, especially since my dog is a female and the urine of the female is more acidic and hence more harmful to grass.  But what else am I or any other dog owner in my situation supposed to do?  Should I train my dog to go on the concrete instead?  I don't think so.  People in Toronto or any other big city don't appreciate dogs fouling the streets and sidewalks any more than they enjoy them doing their business on public or private lawns. 

Unfortunately, however, many dog owners are in a worse situation than I am in that they may not even have any lawns nearby where their dogs can do their business.  Let's face it, green space is an increasingly rare luxury in big cities like Toronto, which is why there are frequent conflicts in public parks where dog owners illegally let their dogs off-leash to play because legal, off-leash parks are very hard to come by and creating new ones is a prospect that is often fiercely opposed by members of the public who don't understand or respect the needs of dogs and their owners.  In fact, even when new, off-leash parks are created, the results aren't always positive.  I still remember when an off-leash area was created in the park I used to go to with my dog.  It ended up turning into a mud pit and the soil became contaminated, so I stopped going there.

The fact of the matter is that both dog owners and people who don't own dogs feel increasingly under siege.  Dog owners like myself feel that there simply isn't enough space for our canine buddies and that our dogs are increasingly unwelcome in the city.  On the other side of the coin, people who don't own dogs are tired of unruly pooches running loose, making noise and even causing harm to people, not to mention the growing nuisance of dog waste left behind by irresponsible pet owners.

I think what is needed is for both dog owners and people without dogs to take a deep breath, step back a little bit, and take some small, easy steps that will help cool the tension a little bit.  For dog owners, the simple step of picking up after your pet will go a long way to lessening the frustrations of your fellow citizens.  For those of you who don't own dogs, please try to have some patience whenever Fido leaves his mark on your lawn.  Try to understand that sometimes, dog owners have no choice but to allow their canine friends to relieve themselves in the closest place possible.  Hey, when ya gotta go, ya gotta go.  And if your lawn does end up with a yellow spot, or two, don't make such a fuss.  It's just grass, and there are plenty of inexpensive products out there that can repair the damage done by pet waste.  Finally, both dog owners and folks without dogs need to chill out and climb down from their high horses.  If someone asks you not to let your dog do his business on their lawn, don't immediately flip them off and start shouting obscenities.  The same goes for when you see a dog defecate on your lawn.  Don't just scream at the owner using various four-letter words.  Instead, kindly tell him to pick up after his dog.  You can even offer him a bag.  Basically, if we all just mellow out and take some simple, tiny steps towards being more neighbourly, we will all feel a lot better at the end of the day. 

Gaza's Terrorists Choose Their Rockets Over Their People's Well-Being

The late Abba Eban, a former Israeli diplomat and cabinet minister, once remarked that the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity," and it looks like they've done it again.  Not too long after Israel agreed to extend the latest five-day ceasefire by 24 hours, Gaza terrorists again fired their rockets.  In fact, just hours before I began writing this, terrorists fired a barrage of rockets into central Israel, with Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion International Airport amongst their targets.  Once again, optimism about the future of the Gaza Strip and its people has been replaced by the dread of continued conflict, more deaths and more suffering.  All because Gaza's terrorist leaders decided that their rockets and their ability to keep terrorizing Israel's citizens was more important than the well-being of their people.

What Could Have Been...

During the ceasefire discussions mediated by Egypt, a lot was offered to the Gaza Strip and its people if only the terrorists would agree to the territory's demilitarization.  The border crossings could be opened.  Goods could start moving into and out of the Strip again.  Homes and businesses could be rebuilt.  There would be trade and commerce again; a real economy again, where Gazans could return to a meaningful existence, instead of just trying to survive from one day to the next.  In short, demilitarization in exchange for economic prosperity and a better future.  But as we all know now, Gaza's terrorist leaders have decided that their rockets are more important than their people.  I'm not surprised.  Hamas and the rest of the terrorist bunch in Gaza feed on the misery of their people.  They need to keep their people miserable.  Why?  So that they can keep telling their people to blame Israel for their misery.  Just think of what would happen if the terrorists agreed to demilitarization.  There would be economic prosperity and they would lose the support of their people, because people who have the opportunity to earn a decent living for themselves and their families are far less likely to support terrorists.  In fact, Palestinians are beginning to realize that as long as Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza rule the roost, they will never be able to live meaningful lives.  See, for example:

Subtle voices of dissent surface in war-torn Gaza

After months of bitter fighting, Gazans said questioning Hamas decisions

Palestinian Leader Mudar Zahran: Hamas is killing my people

What Should Israel Do Now?

First, Israel must do whatever is necessary to put a permanent end to the rocket fire on its citizens from the Gaza Strip.  Second, Israel needs to make sure that it can end its blockade on Gaza so that Palestinians can once again start living meaningful lives, without compromising its own security.  The Israelis and the Palestinian civilians who have died during this conflict will have died in vain if these two objectives are not achieved.  But how can Israel achieve this?  Should its government keep trying to negotiate with the terrorists for a long-term ceasefire?  Absolutely not!


Gaza's terrorists have already shown time and again that they cannot be trusted to adhere to any ceasefire agreement, short-term or long-term.  Besides, a ceasefire is just what the terrorists need to recover their strength, rebuild their weapons arsenals and prepare for future conflicts where they can harm Israel again (see: Hamas: Ceasefire Allows Us to Prepare for Future Battle to Destroy Israel).  Some people just don't get it.  Terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are out to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and will not stop until they achieve their objective - or until Israel destroys them first, which is exactly what I think Israel should do.  And this isn't the first time I've said this.  In fact, shortly after this latest conflict in Gaza began, I said that Israel should exterminate all of the terrorists in their midst (see: Hamas and All Other Terrorists in Israel's Midst Must be Exterminated).

I do understand that there are many folks out there who don't believe a military solution to Israel's conflict with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups is possible, but they are just plain wrong.  Many people probably also thought that there was no military solution to the terrorist insurgency in Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tiger terrorist group managed to take over a sizable portion of the country's north.  But in 2009, the Sri Lankan military finally defeated the terrorists and took back all of the territory that they had conquered.  Israel now has the opportunity to do what Sri Lanka did five years ago: to defeat the terrorists in its midst and drive them out of the territory that they've taken once and for all.  Bear in mind, of course, that the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka did not end the conflict between the island's majority Sinhalese community and the minority Tamils, nor will defeating Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  But exterminating terrorist groups like Hamas will allow Israelis to live in peace without the threat of rocket fire or other acts of violence, while Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere in the Holy Land can live their lives without obstacles to their economic prosperity and rightful pursuit of happiness.