How to Streamline Your U.S. Business Resources

The reaction to this week's blast at a Gazan hospital has shed light on the latter group. The impulse of many journalists and politicians to blame Israel appeared to be motivated thinking. There was a strong desire to either rebalance their "scoring" of the conflict or return to the "oppressor/oppressed" narrative that has grown so common in progressive circlesThe Trudeau government has fallen into this trap. Its reaction to the events of the last two weeks has been clearly schizophrenic. It began more ambiguously than we would have preferred in the immediate aftermath of the assaults. However, it tightened its spine following the prime minister's tough statements with Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre at events in Ottawa. It now finds itself in the untenable position of giving equal respect to the assessments of US intelligence services that Israel was not responsible for the explosion and Hamas' accusations that it wasOne can only hypothesize about what would motivate the government to consider such a posture. We will refrain from commenting here. However, we believe it is an intellectual and moral failure to subject Israel, whose institutions and ideals are similar to our own, to the same standards as a declared terrorist organization. It indicates a category error resulting from a failure to consider the basic differences between the two.It reminds us of a little fictitious scenario from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Apparently, when US President John Kennedy offered to show French President Charles de Gaulle intelligence proving the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba, he said, "No." The word of the President of the United States is sufficient for me."

De Gaulle's premise was that the United States. 

and France shared certain institutions and principles that set them apart from countries with distinct political cultures and systems, resulting in an inherent assumption of trust. The same assumption should be made today about Israel based on its institutions, ideals, and track record of dependability.This does not imply that support for Israel should be mindless or unquestioning. One can agree, disagree, support, or oppose the current Israeli administration. One can even criticize Israel's policy toward Gaza. These are topics on which individuals of good faith can (and should) have passionate disputes.But, as members of the community of liberal democratic states, we should begin with a bias toward Israel, which has established itself as a light of freedom, democracy, and pluralism in the Middle East's hostile terrain. This outlook has influenced The Hub's news and analysis over the last two weeks.The coming weeks and months will undoubtedly bring tragedy and misery to those in Israel and Gaza. Dispassion and judgment will be required to examine the most recent developments and seek a route to peace.However, moral clarity will be required in order to distinguish between a war of necessity and a war of choice, between one side that rejects international military norms and the other that adheres to them, and between a side that targets women and children and another that seeks to avoid them.

We stated in The Hub's foundation.

essay that we believe our choices go beyond the present moment. They not only tell history about ourselves, but they also shape and drive the future. The imminent confrontation between Israel and Hamas presents a sharp contrast and a clear decision. We have decided in favor of Israel and our shared beliefs and values.The current Israel-Hamas war remained the main topic at The Hub this week, with Hub authors criticizing the media, investigating our country's reaction to the war, and debating the best road forward for Canadian foreign policy.The purpose of Hub Forum is to bring together The Hub community's outstanding expertise and experience in one place, so here are some of the most fascinating comments from this week.Register for our daily Hub Forum email newsletter today.The media's reporting on the war risks getting worse.Just as it is "important to report how civilians are impacted when a state takes action against terrorists," the media must also be truthful. Calling Hamas "militants" is a grotesque distortion of what they actually are: terrorists. Reporting only a portion of the story is just as dishonest as reporting untruths. This is where the mainstream media fails us all. I'm finding that the same media outlets are increasingly editorializing and reporting on their own perspectives. Report the news while keeping your personal thoughts out of it.The intermingling and frequently deceptive usage of labels such as Arab, Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Colonizer, Indigenous, and Settler contributes to confusion and enmity in the area and throughout the Western world. A Jewish refugee who fled to Israel in the 1950s to avoid persecution in Iran may be described as an Arab Jew Israeli settler occupying the land originally known as Palestine! In 1946, many Jews and the majority of Muslims in the region had indigenous Palestinian roots. In 1947, Jews became Israelis, while Muslims in Gaza and the West Bank became Palestinians in 1964, when Ahmad Shuqayrī helped establish the Palestine Liberation Organization.

No world authority has ever recognized. 

Palestine as a state; it is simply a moniker given to the territory derived from the Philistines (think Goliath), a people and culture who thrived three millennia ago and died out around 700 BCE. Nearly 60 years of referring to the issue as the Arab-Israeli conflict has reinforced this false distinction. In truth, there is a war between Jews and Muslims.he MSM news broadcasts I saw - CTV Toronto and CP24 - and the same items reported on my local CBC Radio One station did not include the story you mentioned. They targeted those'supporting Hamas militants' who were waving flags and obstructing traffic at a major intersection in Toronto. I didn't see anything about the Prime Minister and our opposition leader, or Ms. Chow and Mr. Singh, denouncing Hamas. I saw no mention of the media calling Hamas what it is: terrorists. So, if we don't demand truth and fairness in news coverage, how can we ever know?"Urban warfare is sheer horror.' The takeaway: Three major takeaways from Robert D. Kaplan's Hub DialogOpen combat should be considered archaic. Urban battle is a chaotic nightmare for combatants, and even more so for innocent citizens caught in the crossfire. The geopolitical fallout, assessment of the 'winners and losers', and identification of new negative global risks from this tragedy may be immediately relevant in each of the world's various'state departments', but the unacceptable human cost of this should be the primary focus, despite our near powerlessness, of every other feeling human being."