Libby Davies - forced to apologize - anti-Israel

Some one who makes these types of comments often is speaking their true feelings no matter what apology they give.  Doesn't matter what political stripe, every party has diverse members that often speak non-party mantra.  I do commend the leadership for their response, however because of the racist flavor of this, she should resign as deputy leader.  To bad, she is often one of the most honest speakers when she is not being partisan.

How so?

E. Tamaran, do you have a link for the full text of your OP? Thanks very much.

Stargazer, it's a shame you couldn't watch the YouTube because Libby is very reasonable in that conversation. She's arguing more for public space to debate the idea of BDS, and at one point she becomes uncomfortable being pressed on the issue.

This comment made me laugh:

Since when does any basically decent and intelligent citizen worry about being "mainstream"? You cannot be a moral being while tailoring your morals to the "mainstream" at the same time -- it just cannot be done. And Canada's "historical position" on Israel/Palestine has certainly been shuggled by the Harper government, very much to the right, although again, that shouldn't be what determines the views of responsible citizens now.

I'm shocked by Mulcair's attack and Layton's flaccid acquiescence in it. I'm a member of the NDP -- both the feds and the ONDP get monthly donations from me. Great gawd ... how many times over the last forty-plus years have I had to retract that commitment for a time?

Remind, let me know when you realize that this is Layton and the whole party leadership doing this. Mulcair just happens to be one of the many unabashed supporters of Israel in that caucus. You think this is Mulcair's doing? As I said, let me know when reality hits, then we can talk.

About Libby.

And Mable Elmore.

And Cheri DiNovo.

And Pat Martin and Judy Wasylicia-Leis (or whoever replaces her now) on the CPCCA.

Starting to see a pattern?

Muclair started it and has been the driving force. POS that he has shown himself to be.

No kidding, Michelle. I didn't see anything wrong with what Mable Elmore said either. In fact, I didn't see anything wrong with what Leslie Hughes said, for that matter. Not even Helen Thomas!

But you and I aren't worthy to judge those things. We're not in Stephen Harper's "Israel's best friend in the world" camp. And we're not spineless cowards. So we're disqualified from the judging.

double post

Well I could watch the video (terrible sound quality mind you) and Libby went to quite great lengths to qualify her remarks as personal, was concerned that it be understood that she was anti-occupation and then went on to point out that the current political climate in Canada was stifling debate because anyone who was anti-occupation was opening themselves up to acccusations of being anti-semitic or anti-Israeli (and we know how often those two are conflated). As to the weird question about 1948/1967... it was kind of obvious to me that it was convoluted and intentionally a "gotcha" question - had I been asked, I would have asserted 1948 somewhat strenuously and would say that Israel has been in violation of U.N. resolution 181 since the very beginning of its existence as a state.

When I wrote to Mulcair (my soon-to-be-ex-MP) and asked him to urge the NDP to leave the CPCCA - he never replied. I had several discussions with two BQ MPs who maintain particularly close relations with our union. I couldn't find anyone in the NDP to discuss the matter with, unfortunately. I'm glad to say the Bloc was a lot more open to those discussions, and they finally did the right thing (though they're still nervous about it because of the power of the Israel lobby).

Anyway, I'm obviously done with Mulcair. I knew about his pro-Israel sympathies right from day one, and expressed my hesitations about him on that basis here on babble. But I was prepared to ignore that and support him for lots of other reasons. We can't dictate people's opinions on a host of matters. But when he decided to become a filthy little stoolpigeon dictating to better people than he will ever be, it's no longer a matter of opinions. It's a matter of which side are you on. He's on the wrong side of history.

As for Layton, he has a simple choice - and unfortunately it appears he has already made it. Next step will be dumping Libby as deputy leader.

This is shades of 2002. Alexa McDonough fired Svend Robinson from his foreign affairs critic role after he tried to visit Arafat in his confinement and criticized the Israeli government.

Too many similarities for comfort.

I wouldn't mind the NDP not leading, if they just didn't suppress people of conscience.

The response of Layton was as despicable as that of Muclair.

This is truly disheartening. If the NDP is far too cowardly to stand with the children of Gaza and against the racist ideological equivalent of the mouse that roared, why should anyone believe the NDP would stand with workers and people against truly powerful corporate and industrial forces when it comes to labour, environment, rights, and the economy?

They are just another Liberal party standing for nothing but bending for every slight breeze.

ETA: I too will be sending a message but I'm certain I will vomit at the smarmy form email I will get in reply.

Personally, I think 'the NDP' is those in the activist movements, where the "leaders" go wrong is thinking they are the NDP, once they are elected.

For God sakes.

I haven't been following this because I've been so busy, but wanted to chime in with my support for Libby.

Actually, Fidel, parts of the CCF/NDP (not Tommy, but Lewis Sr) have quite the Cold Warrior history, maybe not McCarthyite but tippy-toeing in that direction, partly for practical reasons. Sorry: this is drift, but I think we should keep our history careful.

I have to think there is a little bit of really unsettling politics going on here too.  Muclair's over the top attack on Davies seems like the first shot in the leadership campaign to come at some undetermined point down the road.  The comments are pretty low.

I don't really have a problem with Layton's comments.  It was a mistake, if an inadvertant one, and Davies has taken the needed steps towards rectifying that.  I know those who don't like the NDP will use this in their typical line of attack, but both Layton AND Davies seem to have BOTH realized that Davies made a mistake in how she framed her answer to one question.   Seems to me that they worked together to fix it.  I doubt we will see any reduction of Davies' role in caucus.  (I hope I am not wrong on that)

As for calling for a boycott and so on, Davies speaks for a lot of NDP activists and NDP non-member voters like me on that issue, and if anyone is out of step with NDP membership it is Muclair.

You're not alone.

Hmmmm ....

Do you think Jack told the Israeli ambassador murdering nine people on the high seas "was a very serious mistake". What about starving 1.5 million Palestinians? Is that a serious mistake to Jack warranting a discussion with the Israeli ambassador? Or does he only do that when apologizing for one of his MPs straying from the party line of sycophantic loyalty to the adherents of a racist ideology?

Thanks for that Fidel. I didn't think my opinion of Layton et al after this moment could sink any lower. I predict one day the missing NDP spine will be represented by you and Stockholm as everyone with a conscience and a sense of dignity will have moved on. Layton is a coward but he is your coward, eh?

Who interviewed Libby in this video?

That garbled question about 1948 or 1967 was clearly asked in a way to confuse and get a "gotcha-moment" on video.

It looks like a premeditated setup to hurt the NDP. Reminds me of Republican tactics used in the US to destroy ACORN.

In any case. Libby's response that she agrees with the NDP's policy on Israel/Palestine that supports a two-state solution should end this controversy.

And behind closed doors, Muclair should be told to be a better team player.

What was Muclair thinking?

I watched the whole 5 minute interviews with Libby Davies and quite frankly, I agreed with virtually everything she said EXCEPT for her initial comment about the "'occupation' starting in 1948". I realize that is a debatable point in some activist and academic circles - but whether you like it or not - if you say the occupation began in 1948 and then that you oppose the occupation - then it makes it easy for people to claim that you are essentially rejecting "Israel's right to exist" and that opens a whole unnecessary can of worms and makes it easy for people to discredit all the other valid things you have said.

I agree that there is a double standard. Many of the more fanatical pro-Israel types never acknowledge Palestine's right to exist - but they scream bloody murder if they anyone seems to question Israel's - and its rare (if ever) that anyone gets carpetted for questioning Palestine's right to exist. But that is a battle for another day.

Whether we like it or not, if you want to criticise the occupation etc... you have to walk on eggshells and choose your words very, very carefully - precisely because if you say the wrong thing you will lose all credibility and end up in the doghouse alongside Helen Thomas etc...

Libby did the right thing by reiterating her support for Israel's existence and apologizing for her choice of words and that should be the end of the story. I hope that she continues to try to create space for more open debate about the Middle East etc... and that in the future she doesn't make another slip of the tongue that only plays into the hands of her enemies.

I hear you, edmund. Oh how I hear you. The thread title's been changed.

For the record, Libby rocks, and I will be writing to Jack to express my support of Ms. Davies.

Well thanks for proving my point. Layton did not attack Davies, he said she made a serious mistake. Davies herself has acknowledged that. End of story on that front unless there is some kind of punative action, which given the news shot tonight of them together there sure seems like there isn't going to be any. Please try and get you facts straight.
Lots of reasons to attack Muclair and his behaviour, or talk about the unfair way these issues get framed by the media, but Layton most decidedly did not attack Davies.

@ Life, the universe, everything

Actually there isn't much in politics that ISN'T unsettling if you look at it, and I would expect that our minority parliament and the possibility of an election made the NDP even more freaked out by Davies' comments than they were over Robinson in 2002.

I agree the NDP are backing down from an important political stand, one that might even help them since Israel may actually become a liability for Harper (even if Davies made an unfortunate choice of dates). There isn't a political party in existence that doesn't pick and choose issues in the interest of gaining and keeping power. Doesn't make it right, but it is how it is.

Believe me, living in a province where past NDP government and even some in labour have supported the nuclear industry, and our current Sask Party was smart enough to realize it would be the kiss of death if they supported it right now, parties sometimes do what they think will get them power - not what they or their support base actually want.

I'm confused about what the mistake is with Libby's comment.  It's correct isn't it? E.g. see The Origins of the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Settler-Colonialism, Apartheid and Political Zionism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

Excerpt:

And the federal government doesnt believe Palestinians have the right to exist. That doesnt seem to be a big deal.

And I'd like to know just what Mulcair was thinking, attacking one of his own caucus members like that, in such a sensationalist and right-wing media slant sort of way.  I'd really like to know that.  What's in it for him?

I am getting pretty tired of Layton. It seems like winning election is more important than anything now for the NDP. Muclair used to be a Liberal, so no big suprise there. *sigh* I am so sick of federal politics.

Is that actually true? Doesn't Canada still at least "officially" still support a two-state solution with one of the states being Palestine?

Everyone and their mothers can say all they want about supporting a 2 states solution, its as meaningful as George W Bush saying he is pro peace.

Anyways, i stand by my words that the federal government is anti-Palestinians. The Harper government has no problem with them being murdered in cold blooded by the IDF. I hope thats clear enough.

Would you people please make an effort to spell Mulcair's name properly?

Me, I have no choice. I have to make sure I vote against him when I'm in that booth.

Its very odd though - every poll I've seen says that about 15% of Canadians consider themselves to be pro-Israel, about 15% consider themselves to be pro-Palestinian and about about 60% are neutral or thing both sides should drop dead! - yet for some reason the MSM seems to parrot this line that unless you side with the 15% of the population who are pro-Israel - you are "out of the mainstream" and have to be marginalized

Its weird, even the Bloc Quebecois goes along with this mentality as you saw from how a BQ MP jumped in to condemn Libby as well and to reinterate the BQ's totally pro-Israel position - and its not as if the BQ has to worry about any of its core constituency being pro-Israel fanatics - I don't know too many "Christian Zionists" in Quebec who currently vote BQ and who threaten to drop them unless they take the pro-Likud line and while there is a small francophone Jewish community in Montreal - al most all of them live in supersafe Liberal seats like Mount Royal that the BQ can never win - so someone explain to me what's in it for the BQ!

Read Libby's page. She allows every two-bit scum to post comments attacking her as an anti-semite and nazi and you name it. Just look at them.

Her letter of "apology" is quite shameful. It's incomprehensible, in fact. She should take a stand worth defending. She will never win the confidence of the Laytons and Mulcairs. How about understanding that simple fact and siding with her natural constituency - without apologies, without the kind of "diplomacy" that our enemies would never dream of using with her.

Libby's responded to the the controversy very well.

Unionist I am spelling his name wrong on purpose, which I will continue to do.

for my own personal reasons.

....and no thanks on the lookin, I gave up picking my wounds long ago.

That's cool, but what about the four other posters (FM, Life, JKR, and takeitslowly)?

corrected

Well I still won't be a votin' Tory or Liberal, cuz they just suck too badly on WAY too many issues. And the best way to oppose the two same-same parties in phony-minority government is to vote NDP, and regardless of the NDP's election campaign plank for blowing up the planet.

Why is it, though, that when it comes to Afghanistan,and just as a point of reference for comparison,  our in-house experts on democracy say that our vicious toadies in Ottawa should pull the troops out? Iows, they tell us that Ottawa is interfering to extremes in Afghanistan's democracy.

But THEN these same concerned people tend to want to tell us that Jack Layton has no right interfering in sovereign Afghan affairs. NOR does Jack Layton and the NDP have any right to suggest that Canada has an obligation to try to use international diplomacy to try and extricate tens of millions of Afghans from a US-led phony war, a phony colder war "on terror", that's been happenin' in Central Asia for the last 30 years and ongoing. And here is the reason they give:

...BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF CANADA'S BUSINESS! 

And mEEEANwhile, back at babble rancho deluxe,  these same people in the general vicinity of the NAFTA trade zone and memories of GST flippity-floppity after a 1993 federal election tell us that Jack Layton should speak out publicly on Israel's domestic, as in internal, political and legal affairs. Iows, they want Jack Layton to commit to political interference in another country's sovereign affairs!

They're hypocrites. On any given day it's hard to predict which side of their mouths they will speak from next.

But where does Jack Layton say that the NDP supports anti-semitism or even Israeli apartheid?

Apparently he doesn't.

And with Canadians now up to their eyeballs with personal indebtedness on credit cards and other lines of credit to the tune of $1.4 trillion dollars, I'm glad someone is speaking up about this wicked-serious issue in Ottawa. Apparently real Canadian incomes have declined over the last 30 glorious years of Neoliberal ideology in our frozen Puerto Rico while corporate profits have gone only one way. It's a good thing for our token unions in Canada. Their members should get behind the Liberal Party a lot more often.

The floor crossing bill was introduced by the NDP several years ago. The two dirty old line parties love crossing the floor though as they realize they are two wings of the same Bay Street party at a fundamental level.

I'm shocked that you would be shocked. This is just another limp (C'mon, "flaccid"? With that 70s pornstar moustache?) anti-Palestinian reaction in a series of limp anti-Palestinian reactions by the Layton NDP.

I apologize for being mesmerized by Unionist's anti-NDP side issue rhetoric as per usual. It's usually always an appetizing finger dish in addition to the main anorexic course, so I think some slack should be cut in that regard. I'll try to stay focused on this real issue of serious concern from now on.

dbl post space filler

I'm sure Libby is sorry, because she believes that it is necessary to be elected to be heard.  All the comments, here, are from the unelected, and the audience is very, very small.  It probably is beneficial for the old psyche to let loose. But the average masses are never going to hear the moral outrage...necessary as that is on a personal level.  They'll just listen to the opinion they pick up in their local media. Steve understands that with his firm control over ALL Conservative thought 

I'll never forget all the voices from the average masses turning away from New Democrats and going Liberal when Tommy objected to the War Measures Act. I began to re-evaluate my earlier dependency on the opinion of the masses at that time.  

And when you go into your voting booth and vote against a New Democrat - any New Democrat, for any deviation from your own righteous position - do you advance your cause, or that of the Palestinian people ?

Well, George, as you know full well, a vote against the NDP will ultimately be a vote for bosom friends of Israeli apartheid in the two Bay Street parties. We are grown up enough to understand how Canada's obsolete electoral system works. And the part-time Senators never speak up on anything they don't have to unless it's an official half-day at work in the week of a full moon. I agree. How can we better understand the quirky logic on that one? These are progressives saying these things? Why don't they just out themselves and tell us that they support Uncle Sam's client state in the Middle East and everything it stands for? But attacking the fourth party in Ottawa for what have been Israel's crimes and Uncle Sam's for aiding and abetting Israel is a lot like saying they are concerned when they really are not.

I'd prefer to be quoted in full, Fidel.  Context is important...even around here.

I took the time to write to both Mulcair and my MP Comartin wtr to this.  My emphasisi is how does one not stand up against a war crime, which attacking a boat in international waters is.  They don't have to stand up and say that in the house, but at least allow us canadians the information to be allowed to BDS. It is our right to choose where and what we buy and invest in. But you need to know about it for it to happen.

I hope stock you are right and this is to secure HIS seat because it is pushing me away from helping the NDP if they can't take the moral ground on an issue like this. At what point does politicking go out the window for standing up for human rights. Twice in two weeks I have had to write my displeasure to the NDP. Afghanistan wishy washy, maybe we can stay, and now this.

I warned my MP about making me have to choose other options and lose my help on the campaign (and my donation which has been substantial) if the NDP continues on its present course of vote getting instead of standing up for what is morallly correct.

I am so going to relish sending this NDP story to every Palestinian support email I can lay my hands and every left-social democratic formation I can find worldwide. Wait till some of the Turkish labour socialists see this - we'll see if they think it's all ok. Jack's going to get a little more  email from abroad very soon..

I'm surprised to hear you say this, but I'm glad to see some people here are now beginning to see what type of a man Mulcair is.

You're full of shit.

As one of his party workers it is not a threat it is a warning. If no one ever tells you that you or the company you keep are doing something wrong, how would you know. So you can stick your faux outrage at my outrage where the sun doesn't shine george. This isn't about my ego or even yours, this is about making sure the party sticks to principals. I am no longer content to watch them list to starboard anymore. Either they ship up or I will go spend my not so inconsequential efforts somewhere else. I canvas I donate, I talk up the NDP at every opportunity to friends family, people who I don't know who are blowing smoke. When I talk about them as my party its because of the trust I put into them to do what they say. You know stupid ego things like effin human rights and being The Honest Politcial Party and such.

How do you convince people on principals if you don't believe it yourself. Ask any saleperson if its easier or harder to sell a product they don't trust themselves?

Well, what a nice thread to wake up to. Not.

NDPP your rhetoric goes very close to the line of being offensive. Comparing Israel to Hannibal Lector? Jebus.

Fidel, telling another babbler "You're full of shit" is not okay. No, not even in the middle of the night when the mods are sleeping all snug in our beds. Knock it the hell off. 

George, you know your comment to NDPP about being a "sensitive fella" wasn't going to help matters.

thorin bane, telling George to stick it where the sun don't shine isn't okay. Cut it out.

And now I feel like a kindergarten teacher breaking up a fight. And now I've just insulted children in kindergarten.

Someday I would really like to have a conversation about issues and problems we have with the NDP without it degenerating into childish petulant name-calling.

As the song says, someday never comes.

Closing for length.