Former Hamas hostage condemns anti-Israel protest blocking Canadian speaking event
A Hamas captivity survivor on a speaking tour in Canada this month said she won't 'let terror sympathizers control the narrative' after anti-Israel demonstrators allegedly blocked the exit of her venue last week.
Noa Argamani, 27, was in Windsor, Ont., as part of a Jewish National Fund (JNF) fundraising event at the University of Windsor, which reportedly attracted members of the school's Palestinian Solidarity Group.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Forward
2 hours ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
Montreal Gazette
8 hours ago
- Montreal Gazette
Montreal Pride chair resigns amid backlash for barring Jewish LGBTQ2+ group from parade
The chairman of the board of Montreal Pride resigned Monday as the organization continued to face mounting criticism for banning a Jewish LGBTQ2+ group from its annual parade. In a statement, the organization said Bernard Truong informed the board of directors he was stepping down 'for personal reasons.' His resignation came as the group faced national backlash for excluding Ga'ava, a Jewish LGBTQ2+ organization, from the event. In response to his resignation, the board said it 'quickly convened' to ensure a smooth transition and appointed Marlot Marleau as the new chair. 'This change within the board has no impact on the activities of the Montreal Pride Festival, which are currently underway,' the statement reads. 'All teams, staff and volunteers remain deeply committed to delivering a unifying festival, true to its mission of amplifying the voices of 2SLGBTQIA+ communities and creating inclusive, safe and meaningful spaces.' The organization insisted the leadership change was unrelated to the controversy over the barring of Ga'ava from the parade. 'No, Truong's resignation is not related to that,' said Michael Grégoire from the festival's press relations team when asked about the timing. 'Bernard Truong is leaving the board of directors for personal reasons.' As of Monday afternoon, the board of directors webpage had been removed from Montreal Pride's website. According to his LinkedIn profile, Truong works as a senior director at Desjardins. On Friday, five federal MPs signed a joint letter condemning the decision to exclude Ga'ava, calling it 'profoundly hurtful' and urging organizers to reverse it. 'Ga'ava has long provided a vital space for queer Jews to express both their sexual and religious identities with pride,' the MPs wrote. 'Its exclusion sends a message that Jewish identity is not welcome in LGBTQ+ spaces.' Fierté Montréal has since confirmed the group was barred from marching after a complaint led the event's ombudsperson to intervene. Carlos Godoy, Ga'ava's president, told The Gazette that organizers accused the group of hate speech for labelling its critics 'pro-terror' and 'pro-Hamas.' He called the charge 'outlandish and ludicrous.' The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs was also reportedly excluded, although Fierté Montréal organizers have not publicly acknowledged that decision.
Canada News.Net
8 hours ago
- Canada News.Net
Israel says to achieve war objectives in Gaza "without exception"
JERUSALEM/AMMAN, Aug. 4 (Xinhua) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday he will direct the Israeli army later this week on achieving three war objectives "without exception" in Gaza, where more deaths of starvation and malnutrition are recorded despite days of aid deliveries. During his weekly Cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said he will convene the Security Cabinet later this week to "direct the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) how to achieve the three war objectives -- all of them, without exception," listing the goals as "defeating the enemy, releasing our hostages, and ensuring that Gaza will never again threaten Israel." Speaking on condition of anonymity, an Israeli official told Xinhua that Netanyahu is expected to convene a security discussion on Tuesday to deliberate "a total reoccupation" of Gaza. Meanwhile, the Israeli military said in a statement that 120 aid packages containing food were airdropped over Gaza on Monday by the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Germany, Belgium, and Canada. Monday marked the first time Canada joined the airdrop operations. The Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization (JHCO) said in a statement that its new convoy of 38 trucks, carrying humanitarian aid, crossed into Gaza via the King Hussein Bridge on Monday. JHCO Secretary-General Hussein Al-Shebli told Xinhua that 294 Jordanian aid trucks have entered Gaza over the past two weeks, out of a planned 452, due to continued Israeli restrictions at border crossings under the pretext of official working hours. Medical equipment and devices have been denied entry, while inspection and clearance procedures have been prolonged, he said, noting that a single convoy now takes some 38 hours to reach Gaza. Earlier in the day, the Hamas-run government media office said in a statement that only 80 aid trucks entered Gaza on Sunday, bringing the total number of aid trucks entering the enclave since Israel's aid entry permission on July 27 to 674, much less than the 4,800 trucks supposed to enter Gaza in the same period. At least 600 trucks need to enter the enclave every day to meet the minimum requirements of life, it said, accusing Israel of "perpetuating a policy of starvation and chaos." Also on Monday, Gaza-based health authorities said at least 9,440 Palestinians have been killed and 37,986 others injured since Israel renewed its intensive strikes in Gaza on March 18, bringing the total death toll since October 2023 to 60,933, and injuries to 150,027. Five new deaths due to starvation and malnutrition were recorded in the past 24 hours, bringing the overall death toll of that kind since October 2023 to 180, including 93 children, the authorities said.
