Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

conflict

Canada’s ceasefire motion is much ado about nothing

Published

8 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

“On Monday the NDP has a motion that it pitches as a call for a ceasefire. It does so without demanding Hamas surrender & no longer rule Gaza. It also calls for a litany of other things hostile to Israel. Changing foreign policy to reward a terrorist attack. Not smart”.

Canada was thoroughly embarrassed last fall when a former Nazi was applauded in Parliament.

So why are Liberals now shaking hands with a notorious Holocaust denier?

Or openly praising a Hamas zealot who joked about baking a Jewish baby with baking powder, as MP Heather McPherson did when she introduced the Gaza ceasefire motion?

These are some of the questions we can ask after watching the heated House of Commons debate  that took place on March 19, 2024. In what looked more like an amateur debating contest, many speakers appeared to be trying to outdo one another in how pro-Hamas they could be.

The motion was opposed by every Conservative, as well as by three Liberals. One of them, Anthony Housefather, is now contemplating his future with the Liberal Party. Here is how he described the motion that was passed:

“On Monday the NDP has a motion that it pitches as a call for a ceasefire. It does so without demanding Hamas surrender & no longer rule Gaza. It also calls for a litany of other things hostile to Israel. Changing foreign policy to reward a terrorist attack. Not smart”.

And he is exactly right.

Every Canadian wants the war to stop. No one wants to see innocent Palestinians die. However, that will require that the hostages be returned, and Hamas to lay down its arms. That has been Canada’s policy from the beginning of the Oct 7, 2023 conflict. Defence Minister Bill Blair was absolutely clear about Canada’s position, when he said this about Israel, shortly after the Oct 7 attack:

“I think they have a right to defend themselves against that terrorist threat. And quite frankly, Hamas has to be eliminated as a threat not just to Israel but to the world. They are a terrorist organization.”

That is the official position of Canada, and it has never changed. But now, in this non-binding – and largely meaningless – motion the Liberals who supported it have condemned Israel instead of properly putting the blame on Hamas –  the terrorist group that caused the single worst pogrom since the Holocaust

It is extremely important to remember in all of this verbiage that Hamas was, and is, a designated terrorist organization in Canada, and the rest of the Free World. It is also extremely important to remember that Hamas is a proxy of Iran.

However, all of the words wasted on this debate are essentially hot air. Canada’s official position has not changed – Israel has the right to defend itself. To do that, Hamas must be eliminated.

Not that a great deal would change even if Canada’s official position on Israel was altered. Canada was a leader on the world stage at one time. Those days are long gone. The motion is for a domestic audience. It shows the Liberals trying to have it both ways. They are trying to appease their more radical fringe, while not getting Canadian Jews and other Canadians who support Israel not too mad at their obvious hypocrisy. Actual government policy calls for the elimination of Hamas, but Liberals don’t want to say so.

We see Joe Biden and his Democrats doing the same thing – strongly criticizing Israel and its elected leader while the official American position is that Israel has a right to defend itself – which includes eliminating Hamas as a threat. Biden made his staunch support for Israel very clear after the Oct 7 massacre. Despite his equivocation since that time, official American policy towards Israel has not changed. Biden, and Democrats, like Chuck Schumer, are playing to their audiences in sensitive electoral areas, like Michigan with their recent anti-Israel rhetoric. But those are performances for their local audience, as opposed to official policy changes.

What is really important is the U.S. Security Council veto. As long as America continues to veto demands for an immediate ceasefire Israel can continue its legitimate, methodical campaign to eliminate Hamas in Gaza. To date it has taken extraordinary precautions to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, in spite of Hamas’ shocking use of human sacrifice – namely innocent Palestinians – to achieve its goals.

It doesn’t appear that a ceasefire motion that will include terms demanded by the U.S., such as an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas’s barbaric Oct 7 attack, and an immediate release of the hostages, will happen any time soon.

Unless that changes the heated political speeches and increasingly violent protests we see and hear everywhere are just noise. Israel is determined to finish what it has started.

The Oct 7 attack has profoundly shaken Israel to its core. Except for fringe voices, those Israelis who had once hoped that Hamas would eventually morph into a peaceful neighbor have come to the painful realization that it is – in crude terms – “kill or be killed”. They are not going to stop until Hamas is eliminated as an existential threat to their survival. Any nation would do the same if faced with a threat to their very survival.

So, even if the United States should withdraw its Security Council veto the Israelis would probably continue until the job is done – for the simple reason that they have no choice. They are determined to get the job done. The future of Netanyahu will be determined only after the war is over.

The heated words, street demonstrations and politically-charged ceasefire motions will be around for a while, but they are largely much ado about nothing. What is not much ado about nothing is Israel’s certain knowledge that if they don’t destroy Hamas, it will destroy them.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

conflict

US and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Hopefully a world war appears unlikely, but the decision to allow Ukraine to shoot U.S. and U.K.-provided missiles into Russia once again reveals the lengths to which the ‘neocon globalists’ will go to throw a lifeline to their failing business model.

News that the lame duck President Joe Biden has authorized long-range strikes into Russia using NATO systems was announced with the alarming warning that he had “started World War III.”

The following day, U.S.-supplied and operated ATACMS missiles were fired into Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the authorized strikes as an “escalation” showing that the West wants war.

“The fact that ATACMS were used repeatedly in the Bryansk region overnight is, of course, a signal that they want escalation,” he said, according to Reuters.

Lavrov continued: “Without the Americans, it is impossible to use these high-tech missiles, as Putin has repeatedly said.”

Why would the U.S. president finally give the green light to use NATO systems to attack Russia? German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has refused to follow suit and supply German-made Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine – because he does not want to see Germany drawn into a direct war with Russia.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded by suggesting it is only a matter of time before U.K.-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles strike deep into Russian territory.

The U.K. government has been behind a long campaign to escalate the war in Ukraine, a move seen as an attempt to secure continued U.S. commitments in Europe. The Trump camp has long signaled its desire to draw down its security provision to leave a “dormant NATO.”

In an indication of the dangers of the U.K.-backed move by Biden, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced an alarming amendment of the Russian nuclear doctrine.

The policy change, announced in September and published following Biden’s announcement, says “an attack from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint assault on Russia,” according to the BBC.

Russian nuclear doctrine has long included the use of low-yield “tactical” nuclear weapons in “conventional” warfare – a significantly lower threshold than that of NATO.

While Russian officials urged Western leaders to consult the text, Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that “we strongly are in favor of doing everything to not allow nuclear war to happen.”

As Reuters reported, this latest provocation is “unlikely to be a gamechanger.” Western media outlets have moved from a narrative of Ukrainian victory to mulling how or even if the state of Ukraine can survive its “inevitable” defeat.

Yet it is not only Ukraine which faces an uncertain future with a Russian victory. The entire globalist order faces a significant blow should the war conclude. Statements from figures such as George Soros, U.S. General Mark Milley, E.U. chief Ursula von der Leyen, and the former head of NATO stressed that their liberal-globalist regime is threatened by defeat in Ukraine.

Biden’s decision has been seen as an attempt to frustrate Donald Trump’s declared agenda – to clear out the “deep state globalists” whose “neocons seeking confrontation … such as Victoria Nuland” have led the U.S. into endless wars since that in Iraq.

An escalation to all-out war with Russia would not only be a disastrous precursor to nuclear escalation, but would also preserve the dominance of the same “neocon globalists” whose “forever wars” Trump has pledged to end.

Arch-neocon Robert Kagan said Americans who support ending wars are “intolerant.” He went on to author two articles which Hitlerized Trump and appeared to incite the assassination of a man who promised in his 2024 victory speech, “I’m not going to start wars. I’m going to stop wars.”

This follows a long series of claims in the same vein.

“I will end the war in Ukraine,” Trump declared in February 2023, saying he would also end “the chaos in the Middle East” and “stop World War III.”

 

This move by Biden has no military significance in improving Ukraine’s chances of victory. Russia claimed to have shot down seven of eight ATACMS fired into its Bryansk region. Yet prolonging or even escalating this war has enormous political significance.

Since the publication of the RAND Corporation’s 2019 paper “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia,” a strategy of bleeding Russia on the battlefield to collapse its government has been clear. Russia’s near-limitless mineral wealth would provide an obvious boon to a Western system self-sabotaged by sanctions and the destruction of the Nordstream gas supply.

The enormous significance of the war is found in its use as an attempt to extend and consolidate the power of the same system of neocon “globalism” which Trump has vowed to end.

This context explains why the U.K. government has consistently pressed for escalation since the 2022 intervention of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson seems to have sabotaged peace in favor of an all-or-nothing gamble towards “regime change” in Russia.

Since then, the U.K. government has urged the authorization of long-range strikes into Russia, and it has supplied cruise missiles to attack Russian over-the-horizon nuclear radar warning systems, which play no role in the Ukraine war.

Reports have confirmed “terrorist operations” in Russia, including attacks on the Kerch Bridge leading to Crimea were U.K.-led. A recent expose by The Grayzone revealed that the British state appears to be training Ukrainians to fight a guerilla war, extending hostilities even beyond any ceasefire.

Ukraine’s recent and failed offensive into Russia’s Kursk region appears to have also been a British operation – to secure the kind of “morale boost” which Alastair Crooke says is the only significant war-fighting contribution of the authorization of “wonder weapons” like ATACMS.

The ATACMS authorization was heralded as a turning point in the war by Foreign Affairs. Yet the suspicion of Responsible Statecraft that it was a “sideshow that may become a tragedy” appears to have been confirmed.

The grim reality of this war is underscored by the fact that measures taken which will result in even more needless loss of human life are done so to legitimize useful propaganda headlines. This is undertaken to sell a war which has long been predicted to end as it now seems certain to do so: with a victory on Russian terms.

Though it appears unlikely that a world war will result from this latest reckless move, what has been demonstrated once more is the lengths to which the “neocon globalists” will go to throw a lifeline to their failing business model.

That lifeline is perpetual war, and when they end – so do the careers of so many whose livelihoods and reputations depend on keeping them going.

Continue Reading

conflict

Putin Launches Mass-Production of Nuclear Shelters for his People

Published on

From Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

Russia has begun mass production of mobile nuclear bunkers. This is in response to Ukraine’s use of Western US and British missiles to attack deep inside Russia to destroy its conventional capability so NATO can launch an invasion by March/April 2025.

nuclear_doctrine Putin 11 2024

This has coincided with Mr Putin’s change of Russia’s doctrine to lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons to include the use of conventional weapons by Ukraine. Russia’s defense ministry said Ukraine attacked an ammunition stockpile in the Bryansk region using missiles supplied by the US military’s MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

Russia has also ordered the production of its mobile nuclear bunkers to protect citizens. They are shelters capable of protecting people from the light radiation of a nuclear explosion and radioactive contamination of the surrounding environment. These are known as “KUB-M” and will protect 54 people for 48 hours from the air shock wave and light radiation of a nuclear explosion; penetrating radiation and radioactive contamination of the area; high-explosive and fragmentation effects of conventional weapons; falling debris from building structures; dangerous chemicals; fires. Unlike traditional, stationary bunkers, mobile bunkers are built to be easily moved from one location to another, often on vehicles or trailers. They can be equipped with advanced shielding, air filtration systems, and other necessary survival equipment to withstand the harsh conditions of a nuclear event.

Zelenskyy Johnson

The Western press keeps putting out the Neocon and NATO propaganda that Russia will never fire a nuke and Ukraine can win the war. But this is all a smoke screen for NATO will invade Russia, and they are using Ukraine as our Hesbolla, the same as Iran is using Lebanon. Zelensky claimed he invaded Russia to force Putin to peace. But they had a peace deal. Boris Johnson ran to Kiev and instructed Zelensky he was not allowed to sign a peace deal, and now far more than 1 million Ukrainians have been killed so Europe can invade Russia.

Just as Robert McNamara said about Vietnam and the Weapons of Mass Destruction that did not exist in Iraq, what if these people are wrong AGAIN? There goes Europe! Not a single European leader cares about their own people.

Either the Ukrainian people rise up and take their country back, or Putin needs to nuke Kiev to show the world he is serious. Otherwise, we are sleepwalking into World War III. Our press will NEVER write a single word for peace. It is always Putin is bluffing. What if you are wrong again?

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Kiev was just shut down after Biden gave the go-ahead to use long-range missiles. Hm. If this was to win the war, then why flee Kiev? They know Putin will respond forcefully against Zelensky. Russians get nuclear bomb shelters, and we get Fake News – Don’t worry – he’s bluffing.

Continue Reading

Trending

X