Israel Apartheid resolutions and the NDP
John Ivison: Layton hopes Israel issue disappears
No vote was taken but some NDP and Bloc Québécois members refused to agree to its unanimous passage. The Bloc then submitted its own motion, which also criticized use of the word "apartheid" but added a clause, stating not every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. This time, some Conservatives and NDP members refused to grant unanimity. The end result, according to witnesses in the House at the time, was that all parties, with the exception of some NDP members, denounced Israeli Apartheid Week. Since there was no recorded vote, the NDP says this contention remains unproven, which is perhaps just as well for them.
NDP House leader Libby Davies is the most vocal caucus member in support of the Palestinian cause. She did not return calls on Monday, but a letter to her supporters boasted she opposed both motions. She said the Conservative motion was "designed to be divisive and censure legitimate debate on the issue of Israel's policies as well as to specifically target activists who are engaged in debate."
"Whatever one thinks about the term ‘apartheid' in reference to Israel, I don't believe that Members of Parliament should have any role or influence in stifling open discussion and education on this issue," she wrote.
It is unclear how many of her caucus colleagues agree with her on this but her view certainly reflects a dominant strain of thought on the radical left among certain students, union members and intellectuals.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that a significant number of her colleagues do not agree. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the MP for Winnipeg North, said she was disappointed that the House of Commons was not able to reach unanimity on a compromise motion to put its condemnation on the record.
"I have always taken the position that the use of the word ‘apartheid' in the context of Israel is hateful and hurtful. There are differences in our caucus and obviously Libby Davies and I disagree, just as we agree on many other things," she said.
Her position is supported by other NDP MPs like Pat Martin and Peter Stoffer. "We used to take the middle approach where we didn't favour one side over the other - both have done things they shouldn't have done. But if you go too far in favour of one side over the other, you've got a problem," Mr. Stoffer said.
Party leader Jack Layton has the unenviable task of trying to reconcile deeply held views on such an emotive issue. His tactic seems to be to cross his fingers and hope it goes away.
Since no vote was taken in the House, Mr. Layton is able to state without fear of contradiction that members of more than one party refused unanimous consent. "Our position as a caucus was that there needs to be debate," he said. He refused to be drawn on whether he condemns IAW, beyond saying "apartheid" is a word he does not use in reference to Israel.
Got this by email. Not sure where it was orginally posted (rabble?)
Posted on March 12, 2010 by murraydobbin
On Thursday, a number of NDP MPs denied the unanimous consent of the House of Commons required to hear a motion from a Conservative back-bencher which would have condemned Israeli Apartheid Week. Risking the wrath of the vicious and well-funded Zionist lobby in Canada took courage as that lobby has managed to cow Michael Ignatieff and Liberals who run for cover whenever they are called upon to act with integrity on the Palestinian issue. No Liberals denied unanimous consent.
Members of the Bloc also denied consent - but then put forward their own motion condemning the use of the word apartheid to describe Israeli policy. It was also denied consent by NDP members. It was not clear whether the ‘No's' coming from the NDP bench reflected the party's position or just individual MPs as the NDP is divided on the issue.
The motion was part of the international effort to silence the voices exposing the racist nature of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. Many suspect that these resolutions will gradually lead to laws making it illegal to refer to Israel as an apartheid state. The denial of unanimous consent is a real victory in this fight and a set-back for Harper and his pro-Zionist policies.
There has been a victory on another front in this fight.. Some weeks ago I wrote a column on the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA), an informal group dedicated to redefining criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. As I wrote then, the CPCCA revealed its extreme bias towards Israel by refusing to issue any invitations to groups that had ever criticized Israel and by refusing to accept any requests from such groups to testify.
On Thursday, the two members of the Bloc Quebecois on the Coalition stepped down, denouncing the Coalition and its process. The story in Le Devoir reads as follows:
"We found that the list of the proposed witnesses presented a single side of the same coin", explains the whip of the Bloc Quebecois, Michel Guimond. "We wanted this to be a lot more reasonable." They asked to hear the Canadian-Arab Federation, that had submitted testimony and asked for an audience, as well as the Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East. The committee, presided by the conservative Scott Reid, did not grant this request.
Michel Guimond asserts that the withdrawal of the Bloc must be understood as a "repudiation". The party wants to distance itself while the Coalition prepares its report. "We consider that the Coalition is tainted, partisan and presents a single side of the coin. We desired a much more moderate approach, more consensual, and still with the outlook to find peace."
So far, the NDP members of the Coalition, Winnipeg MPs Pat Martin and Judy Wasylycia-Leis, both long time apologists of Israel, have not stepped down. Presumably, they are happy with the decisions of the Coalition to deny all but Zionist voices to present evidence to their Coalition.
In the meantime, in the real world of geo-politics, Barack Obama's policy of appeasing Israel is playing out exactly as anyone familiar with Israel and is extreme right wing Prime Minister would expect. Exactly at the time that Vice President Joe Biden was on a state visit to kick-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would be building 1600 more housing units on illegally seized land in East Jerusalem. Biden, who should have cut his visit short by way of protesting this insult, only managed the mildest of rebukes. Netanyahu's move, and the US's pathetic response, revealed once again that the US (let alone Israel) is not seriously committed to Mideast peace. The only real card the Americans hold is the billions in military and domestic aid they give Israel every year. But that card is not in the deck - tossed aside by Obama before he even became president.
In an unusual move, the Harper government actually criticized Israel's decision to construct more housing units - a move interpreted as supporting the US in its time of acute humiliation.
Obama's abject failure to stand up to Israel has even graver consequences for the whole region. Israel is determined to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, something the US opposes. But each time Obama acquiesces to another Israeli outrage, the message is clear: in the crunch the US will do nothing. An attack on Iran by Israel, unopposed by the US, is widely expected to result in Iranian attacks on the US in Iraq, just at the time when there is already a political crisis (a hotly contested and flawed election) which threatens to re-ignite sectarian violence. Add to that the massive spike in oil prices that would follow such an attack (and the possible Iranian intervention in Afghanistan) and Obama's failure to act seems inexplicable.
These latest developments reinforce the claim by many analysts that US foreign policy is driven not by American interests but by Israel's.
Hélène Buzzetti 16 mars 2010 Canada
Ottawa - Le conflit au Moyen-Orient divise les élus du NPD. Certains députés, le Québécois Thomas Mulcair en tête, voudraient que leur formation adoucisse le ton face à Israël. Le refus du NPD d'appuyer une motion la semaine dernière critiquant la tenue de la Semaine contre l'apartheid israélien a avivé les tensions au sein du parti.
«Je suis très déçue que nous ne puissions pas trouver un compromis», a expliqué en entrevue la députée de Winnipeg, Judy Wasylycia-Leis. La députée forme, avec Thomas Mulcair et Pat Martin, le noyau plus pro-Israël du caucus du NPD.
Jeudi dernier, le Parti conservateur a demandé le consentement unanime de la Chambre des communes pour déposer une motion dénonçant la tenue de la Semaine contre l'apartheid israélien. Cet événement annuel, qui a lieu sur les campus canadiens, a pour but de dénoncer ce que plusieurs considèrent comme les politiques racistes de l'État hébreu envers les Palestiniens. Le consentement a été refusé par le Bloc québécois et le NPD.
Le Bloc québécois a répliqué par une motion de son cru se voulant un compromis: on dénonçait l'utilisation du mot «apartheid» pour qualifier les politiques israéliennes, mais on dénonçait aussi l'amalgame souvent fait entre critiques d'Israël et antisémitisme. Cette fois le Parti conservateur a refusé, ainsi que le NPD qui devait au départ l'appuyer.
«Je n'appuyais aucune des motions», écrit sur un blogue la députée Libby Davies. C'est surtout elle, au NPD, qui fait rager ses collègues sur cette question. «Quoi qu'on pense de l'utilisation du mot apartheid pour décrire Israël, écrit-elle, je ne crois pas que les députés fédéraux devraient essayer de limiter les débats et l'éducation à propos de cet enjeu. Ayant moi-même visité la bande de Gaza à deux reprises, j'ai pu constater par moi-même l'impact et la destruction des politiques d'Israël sur les Palestiniens.»
Cette sortie publique de Mme Davies a mis au jour les dissensions et met tout le caucus mal à l'aise. Son cas sera d'ailleurs discuté au caucus demain. «Une de mes collègues a décidé de mettre en ligne une critique où elle exprimait son point de vue qu'au Moyen-Orient, il n'y a qu'Israël à blâmer, et cette opinion ne reflète pas la réalité», a expliqué le député Thomas Mulcair. Il ajoute que «c'est très clair qu'il est inadmissible d'utiliser le terme apartheid en relation avec le seul pays démocratique du Moyen-Orient».
Knock me over with a feather! Issues around the middle east cut across party and ideological lines - who knew?? Sometimes people just have to agree to disagree. Of course if this were the Liberal Party we could have splits within the brain of Micheal Ignatieff as he "thinks thoughts" - seeing as one day he says Israel is guilty of war crimes and then the next he says that he is not losing any sleep over the loss of life in southern Lebanon.
Where are all the howls of outrage about the opening post coming from the National Post.
One thing I've noticed is that people on both sides of the debate have a weird obsession with the Israel/Palestinian conflict. People on the very pro-Israel side go on and on about Israel being "singled out" all the time - implying that there is some veiled anti-semitic agenda at work to explain it. But then people like B'nai B'rith and John Ivison and the Conservative Party go to spend even more time singling out Israel over and over in their bidding war to see who can be the most pro-Netanyahu etc...
THis is the second time in a week that Ivison has devoted a whole column to speculating on what sort of "major rift" (sic.) may or may not exist in the NDP on this issue (Hey Mr. Ivison, what about the major rift on the issue inside Iggy's brain as he "thinks thoughts"?). I guess if you're the National Post better to invent a controversy here than devote a wholoe column to the "major rift" in the Tory caucus on whether or not Harper should fire Helena Guergis!! or the apparent "major rift" between Jason Kenney and John Baird over whether or not the citizenship guide should mention gays and lesbians.
I don't want to get into the business of encouraging people from national Post on where to look for potential divisive issues in the NDP. But quite frankly, there is a lot more potential smoke and fire over such issues as the long gun registry (urban vs. rural MPs), Canada's role in Afghanistan (Stoffer vs. everyone else), asymetrical federalism (thank God most westerners in the NDP have never actually read the Sherbrooke declaration or they would have a seizure!), there are probably even a couple of NDP Mps who are against the seal hunt who would get into a fight with Jack Harris! etc...etc..etc... of course the difference is that these are all issues that actually MATTER in Canadian politics - which means of course that they are wayyy too boring for anyone at the National Post to write about them. They would rather continue with their single minded obsession about Israel. Meanwhile in the real world, I would conservatively estimate that about 95% of Canadians are not on either "side" in the Middle East and wish that our politicians would spend more time on real issues that affect us and where Canadian government policy makes a differnece and on not on esoteric issues like semantic debates about words to use to describe Israeli policies in the occupied territories.
From: "laytoj@parl.gc.ca" <laytoj@parl.gc.ca>
To: laytoj@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 10:51:40 AM
Subject: Israel Apartheid Week - reply Jack Layton
Thank you for your email regarding Israel Apartheid Week. Your comments
have been helpful in our work.
New Democrats have long been vocal and passionate advocates for a
peaceful end to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We have consistently said
that Canada can play a positive role in bringing Israeli and Palestinian
representatives to the negotiating table in order to chart a path
towards a negotiated peace, which ensures Israelis and Palestinians can
live safely, side by side, in independent states with secure borders.
We know that extraordinary goodwill is required to achieve such peace.
We deeply yearn for such a result and that is just one reason why
"apartheid" is not a word I use when talking about this complex and
difficult issue.
Last week, various motions were presented regarding IAW for adoption by
unanimous consent with no opportunity for debate. There has been a
consensus in the House that all motions seeking unanimous consent, on
any subject, must be given due consideration by all parties. When the
motions were presented, there were objections from various Members of
Parliament. As a result, the motions did not proceed.
We invite Canadians of all political and religious stripes to join us in
strongly condemning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and intolerance
in all its ugly forms.
Again, thank you for contacting me. All the best.
Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrats
what's not to like?
That was a nice letter.
There is the side of humanity, and alternately the side of liars, theives, hate propagandists and murderers. It certainly does require the taking of a side to indicate opposition to oppression, murder, ethnic cleansing and illegal land appropriation, although it may involve demonstrating that one has a backbone, and at least an elementary grasp of decency and fairness. Sadly those qualities appear to be in short supply on the NDP benches these days, and in that sense, betrayal of the most basic principles becomes ever more obvious when they occupy themselves in this fashion with mirroring the customary spinelessness that is rife among the other parties. It is better to turn ones back on these charlatans and their treachery than to expect anything of them.
Just keep in mind - in Manitoba, where the NDP is the government, a Tory MLA has promised to bring up a similar motion to condemn IAW. We need to stop this motion, as it encourages campus repression and is the first step towards criminalizing IAW. We just had the Leader of the Opposition and a government cabinet minister call for IAW to be banned.
Trying to cast this conflict as "good vs. evil" is pretty useless. A lot of mistakes have been made and opportunities missed by BOTH sides and atrocities have been committed by both sides. If you think the NDP (or anyone else in Canadian civil society) is going to put out a press release saying that Israel is evil incarnate and Hamas are the archangels of dececy and humanity who can do no wrong - you will be waiting untill hell freezes over.
Trying to cast this conflict as "good vs. evil" is pretty useless.
How about "occupier and occupied"?
Being "occupied" doesn't make you the good guy. Germany and Japan were "occupied" by the allies for quite a few years after World War Two.
Just out of curiosity, is Quebec "occupied" by Canada?
Sticks and stones may break bones but uranium tipped shells last forever. Moral equivalency is so very wrong when it involves choosing between a heavily armed state and the people the state is terrorizing.
The only solution is to get back to the negotiating table. Name calling is doing ZILCH to advance the Palestinian cause.
Back to the negotiating table? How do you think that will go Stock? Do you honestly believe that Israel is going to be even remotely fair? They are still allowing expansions into Palestine territory, despite the call for "goodwill". How long should people suffer to appease Israel?
How much bargaining power to you believe the Palestinians have? Every major country, with the exception of a few, have sided with Israel. This is not about fairness, or negotiating. You cannot "negotiate" while you are in a position of helplessness.
Israel needs to stop it's aggressive attacks against everyone. That includes it's tactic of branding any and all people who support the Palestinian struggle as anti-semitic.
Name calling? Israel is a racist state. Period. What is your term for what Israel is doing? I'd love to hear it.
Being "occupied" doesn't make you the good guy. Germany and Japan were "occupied" by the allies for quite a few years after World War Two.
Just out of curiosity, is Quebec "occupied" by Canada?
Yeah, except the allies, and especially the U.S., were intent on turning both those countries into economic powerhouses, which they did. There is utterly no parallel with Israel's occupation of Palestine -- like, none.
I think the real worry is that Israel is pretty obviously intent on attacking Iran. I think the Americans are ambivalent -- a recent article in Foreign Affairs (see pogge at POGGE) suggests there's a real tension between AIPAC and the U.S. military on that score.
But there's the logic of criminalizing free speech on the issue in Canada. If there is an attack, thousands upon thousands of Canadians will protest, and Kenney wants to be in a position to criminalize those protests. I think that's a main driver behind all the campaigns right now -- CPCCA, the denunciations of IAW, etc.
That whole region could easily go up in flames if Israel attacks, and I mean Pakistan as well as the Arab states. We have troops there. Guess what Steve will want to do with them?
Name calling?..... What is your term for what Israel is doing? I'd love to hear it.
An observation that should be repeated over and over again.
Are the people in Israel a race? Are Palestinians a race apart from so called Israelis?
Is it religion combined with geo-political colonialist desires? As when pundits start referring to it as the "holy land" the whole thing takes on a religious hue.
Having said that, I too, would like to hear what Peeches, profit and Jaku et al call what Israel is doing.
Exactly, all these religions claiming the right to the "Holy Land". It has been and always will be about geo-political control for the US, Israel and it's allies.This nonsense about the "Holy Land" is simply propaganda and an excuse for hatred and military control.
skdadl, what do you think the chances are of America actually backing a war with Iran? I ask because I don't know how the world will react to an attack on Iran.
This article in Foreign Policy suggests that the U.S. military are definitely not onside with Israel's behaviour generally and are worried about perceptions in the rest of the region of U.S. failures to rein Israel in.
As you might surmise, I am not a great fan of the MIC (military-industrial complex), and I very much fear Petraeus as a future Republican political candidate. However, I consider him at least sane. When pogge put this link up at BnR and then posted to it at POGGE, he asked: in a contest between AIPAC and the Pentagon, who wins? I think that hands-down the Pentagon wins.
The MIC is incredibly powerful. Both the U.S. and the Israeli economy depend on it. If they say no attack on Iran, there either will be no attack on Iran, or ... we're in deep shit. You've heard of Armageddon? You've heard that some people are looking forward to it? (Everybody wave at that nice Mr Kenney.) At the very least, I don't think Petraeus is one of those.
Exactly, all these religions claiming the right to the "Holy Land". It has been and always will be about geo-political control for the US, Israel and it's allies.This nonsense about the "Holy Land" is simply propaganda and an excuse for hatred and military control.
This is one area where both sides are very much at fault. For all the talk from "Christian Zionists" and from some Israelis about this area being the "Holy Land". The Arabs play the same card over and over again. For example, up until about 50 years ago, Jerusalem was no particular religious significance to Muslims and was somewhere wayyyyy down the last of places of religious significance with Mecca and Medina being at the top. But once Israel/Palest9ine because a "hot button" area of dispute - all of sudden it was critical that Jerusalem be an Arab controlled city because it was so "holy" to Muslims. Not to mention a lot of Christian arabs who would try to get sympathy from the vatican by going on about the dangers of letting "perfidious Jews" have control over the "holy land".
Of course it all bullshit - Jerusalem is a pile of bricks and mortar like any other city and its of no more or less actual importance to the world than say...Winnipeg
Nice historical revisionism. Any cites for your precis, especially the talking point that Moslems didn't think it was particularly significant. That statement seems to be right up there with the "Palestinians were nomads with no real ties to the area" now held by European settlers armed to the teeth with the latest goodies from NATO's arms manufacturers including Canada..
I guess they built that impressive structure centuries ago because they knew it would be an important propaganda piece in the modern era not because they thought it had any religious significance.
Of course it all bullshit - Jerusalem is a pile of bricks and mortar like any other city and its of no more or less actual importance to the world than say...Winnipeg
Hey! You talking smack about this frozen shit-hole?
For example, up until about 50 years ago, Jerusalem was no particular religious significance to Muslims and was somewhere wayyyyy down the last of places of religious significance with Mecca and Medina being at the top.
If by "wayyyyy down" the list you mean "third," then yes, you're dead-on.
Israeli Apartheid and the Nakba
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25004.htm
"There can be absolutely no doubt that Israel has created an inhuman, illegal and utterly disgraceful Apartheid state (vid)
i think the fact that all parties in canada reject, without any evidence to back up any claims of bigotry etc., IAW is just another example of how there really is no difference between the parties on international issues. it seems that increasingly, even on domestic issues, we have a one party state that all supports the same policies, just with minor modifications to satisfy their base of "voters".
absolutely so - realpolitik rules with various sales pitches in various political 'markets' depending on what 'sells'
Meanwhile...
MPP says 'enough' to Facebook threats
Hate mail over Israel motion fills MPP inbox
Yeah ... Staving Gaza is a "respectful way" to Shurman. I guess. But, hey, they're just Palestinians. Not real people, eh?
it seems that increasingly, even on domestic issues, we have a one party state that all supports the same policies, just with minor modifications to satisfy their base of "voters".
It is called a "parliamentary consensus" and, essentially, you are correct.
So insignificant they built a honking big mosque there.
Yes Schulman just wants to have the parties iron out their differences. israel is doing that by razing Palestine neighbourhoods. Everything is now nice and flat to build settlements on.
In a few weeks, a report will be issued that could be the first step to criminalizing criticism of Israel in Canada. The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) is preparing a summary report and recommendations. This report could make criticism of the policies of the State of Israel difficult, perhaps even illegal, by positioning such criticism a form of anti-Semitism.
We urge everyone who wishes to protect Canadians' freedom of expression, and who believes in justice in the Middle East, to take action below, asking the NDP to withdraw from this coalition.
Ask the NDP to withdraw from the CPCCA
Judy Wasylycia-Leis and Pat Martins deserve a lot of negative attention for their anti-free speech position re: CPCCA. They both
deserve a solid public drubbing for their positions.
In a few weeks, a report will be issued that could be the first step to criminalizing criticism of Israel in Canada. The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) is preparing a summary report and recommendations. This report could make criticism of the policies of the State of Israel difficult, perhaps even illegal, by positioning such criticism a form of anti-Semitism.
We urge everyone who wishes to protect Canadians' freedom of expression, and who believes in justice in the Middle East, to take action below, asking the NDP to withdraw from this coalition.
Ask the NDP to withdraw from the CPCCA
Done and thank you for informing about the petition.
It's actually difficult for social democratic parties like the NDP to really distinguish themselves from the leading bourgeois parties on foreign policy. While in Canada it's much easier to project a liberal "middle of the road" position and confuse the voters, outside of this country the life and death issues cannot be portrayed in that way. In many cases there is no middle of the road. That's just unpleasant for those who are used to positioning themselves in between "the extremes", mocking political clarity, and diluting real solidarity with concrete struggles with a watered down bourgeois human rights blather. It's much easier to talk about "freedom of religion", for example, than to discuss the consequences of using phorphorus weapons on Palestinian hospitals, .
Some people, therefore, trivialize or downplay the significance of international solidarity. The reasons are obvious.
I think it's our FPTP electoral system that commands how political parties campaign. The NDP does try to appeal to more voters outside the 22% or so of reg'd voters choosing governments than the other two parties. But our FPTP system is to blame for Canada's uncompetitive politics overall. A lot of this foreign policy and third rail stuff isn't going to change things for the NDP by a lot. Our mathematically absurd voting system tends to punish progressive political parties and voters alike not reward them.
For parliamentary parties, the "principle" of getting elected trumps all other principles - including the principle of solidarity or internationalism.
For parliamentary parties, the "principle" of getting elected trumps all other principles - including the principle of solidarity or internationalism.
Yes. Getting elected is the name of the game. And with FPP, it doesn't pay to be too progressive or advertise too many progressive policies outside the old line party normal. Ontario is still politically conservative after 50 years of Tory rule and a string of phony-majority dictatorships in Toronto. Voting Liberal here is a radical change from normal for many of those 22 percent of reg'd voters who did the choosing last election.
Marx placed some emphasis on winning the battle for democracy. And he said that much of the capitalist apparatus should be utilized in a transition period from capitalism to socialism and eventually toward a dictatorship of the people. We must continue proving that the NDP is the most fiscally responsible under the top-down federal-provincial neoliberal order of things. Every time a provincial NDP government does so, it furthers the case for a federal NDP government some day. Socialism requires national level power, and so far over the last 30-35 years, neoliberalism has been the antithesis of strong central government in Ottawa.
So, apparently the motion in Manitoba did not pass, nor was it defeated. The Conservatives and Liberals were in support of it, while the NDP opposed it on the basis that they hate IAW just as much, they just think the motion will give those jerks organizing IAW in Manitoba more attention.
Also, Tory MLA Ron Schuler called us Nazis with his Neville Chamberlain references.
And McFadyen and Stefanson are completely full of shit when they say they're for free speech. Stefanson said she wanted to "eradicate" IAW, and McFadyen stood aside David Matas as a media prop as Matas called for IAW to be banned. Clearly, these three fuckwits (including Schuler) are true crusaders for free speech.
They did not get around to voting on the motion, because they managed to run out the clock talking shit (mostly lies) about IAW.
Hansard debate - good for a laugh or two
Trying to cast this conflict as "good vs. evil" is pretty useless. A lot of mistakes have been made and opportunities missed by BOTH sides and atrocities have been committed by both sides. If you think the NDP (or anyone else in Canadian civil society) is going to put out a press release saying that Israel is evil incarnate and Hamas are the archangels of dececy and humanity who can do no wrong - you will be waiting untill hell freezes over.
Precisely...
And how do people feel about the Russian "war on terror" in Chechnya? Even the Saudis and other Islamic countries are somewhat reluctant to condemn the Russians for their war on democracy in oil-rich Chechnya, and it's because the Russians are supporting the Palestinians against the US-backed Israelis. Anyone born after 1980 or so will have a hard time figuring out what in hell is still going on after several decades of the same cold war bs still going on today.
If you think the NDP (or anyone else in Canadian civil society) is going to put out a press release saying that Israel is evil incarnate and Hamas are the archangels of dececy and humanity who can do no wrong - you will be waiting untill hell freezes over.
That's some observation. You could say the same thing about Palestinian civil society.
If you think the NDP (or anyone else in Canadian civil society) is going to put out a press release saying that Israel is evil incarnate and Hamas are the archangels of dececy and humanity who can do no wrong - you will be waiting untill hell freezes over.
That's some observation. You could say the same thing about Palestinian civil society.
And, of course, defending IAW is nothing like issuing the mythical press release Stockholm describes above.
Well if all of the Russians, al-Q and Ken support the Palestinians unconditionally, then I guess all progressives will have to support all of them unconditionally and vice versa as well. It's shaping up to be an interesting colder war.
When people can sit and watch the murder of a people and the stealing of their land in plain view without intervention by themselves or their so called 'progressive' party except for carefully nuanced mealy mouthed missives blaming 'both sides', there is nothing 'progressive' about it - or them:
from Yves Engler: Canada and Israel
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/babble-book-lounge/canada-and-israel-buildin...
Engler is creating on his own a very good trail of anti-imperialist and anti-colonial scholarship. The best part, of course, is that he's specialized in exposing CANADIAN imperialism and CANADIAN colonialism. And that's very good in a country, like our own, in which such subjects are met with invective (Peter Gzowski on Noam Chomsky on CBC Radio) or an uncomfortable silence.
Well if all of the Russians, al-Q and Ken support the Palestinians unconditionally, then I guess all progressives will have to support all of them unconditionally and vice versa as well.
Yeah, and don't forget to wear your nazi uniform while doing so.
If you think the NDP (or anyone else in Canadian civil society) is going to put out a press release saying that Israel is evil incarnate and Hamas are the archangels of dececy and humanity who can do no wrong - you will be waiting untill hell freezes over.
That's some observation. You could say the same thing about Palestinian civil society.
And, of course, defending IAW is nothing like issuing the mythical press release Stockholm describes above.
No, but they do regularly put out press releases saying IAW and its organizers are evil incarnate and that Israel is a beacon of decency and humanity which can do no wrong.
True. I was just saying that people who defend the legitimacy of IAW events are not guilty of taking the views expressed in Stockholm's mythical straw man press release.
deleted
Ms. DiNovo is already being condemned and ridiculed in this thread, Michael. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, and waiting for her to announce:
Still waiting, as we go to press.
Cheri is angling for one of those free trips to Israel that so many politicians avail themselves of. While there they will not be show things like this:
Fomenting Armageddon
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15913
"The Israelis are instigating Jewish holy war staged in Jerusalem and they are playing a superb game of propaganda painting the Palestinians as the 'real' fundamentalists despite the fact that the Knesset has more active right-wing political parties than any state in the civilized world.."
Ms. DiNovo is already being condemned and ridiculed in this thread, Michael. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, and waiting for her to announce:
"The Jewish Tribune are lying scum. I would never spew such ugly anti-semitic and anti-Palestinian shit as they have attributed to me. What kind of monster do you think I am?"
Still waiting, as we go to press.
I think the time has passed. So, in fact, DiNovo is an open supporter of Israeli racism.
Pretty much what I've said all along. Why is anyone surprised. Funny thing about the death threats too, apparently she never filed a police complaint. This woman is a disgrace to the NDP.
Basically a liar and a racist and completely useless to helping the NDP get ahead. She should join the liberals or the conservatives
You know what? I think she actually might do that.
She may be having secret meetings with Bob Rae as we speak. They'll give her a safe riding to take in a byelection and then make her the Liberal spokesperson on Middle East issues.
Are Ms. DiNovo's opinions regarding the Zionist entity typical of those in the NDP caucus in Ontario? Maybe she has more support than babblers think she ought to have.
Conversely, if some here are correct, and she wants to jump to the Liberals or Conservatives, perhaps she'll start to see herself as a potential Hillary Clinton.
Funny how the only threats are being made by the US/Israeli state.
Ilan Pappe has mockingly referred to the US/Israel axis as "the master race". I suppose only someone of Pappe's stature can throw such a head shot at imperialism and colonialism and get away with it. ooh rah. I'm still looking for the article where I first read that.
This is the only open thread I could find on this issue - it's about crushing of political speech in Ontario, not about the NDP:
Markham Town Council condemns use of term "Israeli apartheid"
Bernie Farber, Israel's bootlicker and enemy of the best traditions of the Jewish people, was on hand, earning his filthy lucre.
Try here, Unionist.
But quite frankly, there is a lot more potential smoke and fire over such issues as the long gun registry (urban vs. rural MPs), Canada's role in Afghanistan (Stoffer vs. everyone else), asymetrical federalism (thank God most westerners in the NDP have never actually read the Sherbrooke declaration or they would have a seizure!)
Ah, it's always so nice to be reduced to a cultural stereotype.
For your information, this westerner finds the Sherbrooke declaration an eminently sensible document.
Now go back to your lattés and quiche, I have wheat to grow.
Is this the place to point out that the assertion that reading the Sherbrooke Declaration could induce seizures among Western New Democrats is an insult not only to Western New Democrats, but also to epileptics?
Well given the thread title, no not really the place to point it out. What is with the thread drift here from so many?
Is this the place to point out that the assertion that reading the Sherbrooke Declaration could induce seizures among Western New Democrats is an insult not only to Western New Democrats, but also to epileptics?
We's drifters.
On all threads or some at random or at some for some unknown or unstated reason?
We's drifters.