Stand up for Libby Davies - part 3

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Stand up for Libby Davies - part 3

Yes!

Unionist

Here is the NDP's official policy on the Israel-Palestine question:

Quote:
Work with partners for peace and justice in Israel and Palestine, within a framework of respect for UN resolutions and international law. This means recognition of the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon borders; no settlements remaining in the Palestinian state; an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land; an end to loss of life of innocent civilians; and an international peacekeeping presence.

I defy anyone to identify anything in Libby's interview that violated this policy.

Yet, Layton, Mulcair, and Dewar all condemned her statements, and Dewar said that only he and Layton could pronounce on these issues.

 

Michelle

I want to respond to Stockholm's post in the thread where he says that she can speak out as long as it doesn't go against party policy.

This is problematic.  She made it clear that she was not speaking on behalf of the party.  She said that she hasn't gone as far as BDS politically yet, but that personally she supports it and would like to see some space made in the political realm for it to at least be discussed.

There is nothing wrong with saying that.  How would change ever happen politically if the grassroots were unable to influence leaders and representatives to share their views on a subject, and then have those people try to make political space for those views?

She has not in any way misrepresented the views of the party.  And there is no reason for her not to share her views if she makes it clear that the views are hers (which she did).  That is how things change.  Policy change comes after people speak out, not before.

KenS

I agree with Michelle.

And I'll repeat what I said before that the statements about Libby are not to be taken so literally. You can say Unionist that what they said implies going to those lengths, but it doesn't.

[And I did already disagree with Stock that contradicting policy isnt the problem.]

KenS

But you'd have to be pretty damn hair splitting to say that referring to Israel's occupation as beginning in 1948 as "not violating the policy." It doesnt SAY in there that the occupation begins with the 1967 seizure,  but that is the international agreement.

Unionist

So it was only the one phrase "1948" which contradicted policy? She doesn't need to apologize for talking about boycott?

KenS

Give it a break Unionist. I already said that it isn't about contradicting policy. But you brought it up and I was saying that its not as if inserting 1948 was consistent with the policy.

The problem is that [unintentionally] bringing in 1948 and the creation of Israel is jumping up and down on a hot button. That was Libbys mistake, and she knows it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I was extremely proud of her when she not only attended the rally on June 5th but also agreed to speak.  Funny how no one is talking about her speech. The part that I don't get is that by saying absolutely that 1948 cannot be used as the start of the occupation is to explicitly say that there were no dispossessed and displaced Palestinians with legitimate grievances.  It is neither accurate to say the occupation started in 1948 nor is completely accurate to say that the creation of the State of Israel did not result in the "occupation" of land formerly owned by Palestinians.  

I urge everyone to listen to the three minute speech that she gave just before the interview.  [Her speech starts at 1:45]  Note she needs no notes or handlers because she is not that kind of politician.  I hope she never gets constrained to being only a talking point spouter.  She fights effectively for change for the marginalized because she is genuine. We need more politicians who are not constantly thinking about what is prudent to say. I prefer my politicians to have real emotional compassion not a wrist cheat sheet of approved responses. Without voices like hers the NDP would be greatly diminished.  I suspect she would resign before being allowed to be muzzled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3CAg30vjZw

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Give it a break Unionist.

I'd be happy to give it a break, the minute you make a comment about whether Layton, Dewar, and Mulcair acted properly - rather than just harping about how she made a mistake and she knows she made a mistake and she understands she made a mistake. I opened this thread to call for defence of Libby Davies - not every word or every slip she might make - and I'm curious where, exactly, you stand on the larger issue here.

Ripple

http://straight.com/

On the right of the page, under "Most Popular," there are several articles related to this - statement from IJV spokesperson, comments from Derrick O'Keefe (past co-chair of Vancouver's stopwar coalition and former rabble editor?), David Katz's statement, and Murray Dobbin's article.  There's an online poll, too, for what it's worth.  I think her consituents are with her (for what that's worth, too).

 

As an aside, I believe I met David Katz at the protest where Libby was interviewed.  I was at the back of the march when a young man ran up with his notebook - he did not identify himself as a citizen-journalist, just as an interested citizen, and began interviewing me.  The framing of his questions set my spidey senses tingling.  Only when I asked directly who he was did he identify himself as a citizen-journalist.  If this is the same man, his statement is disingenuous in the extreme.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

That's your bullshit detector going off, young lady. Trust it.

remind remind's picture

David Katz should learn how to really tell falsehoods bette, IMV.

 

The plausible denibility he is using was blown out the window with his comment about Small Dead Animials finding out about it "some how"

 

What a putz and perhaps those  left of centre should be wary of him and his connections to small dead animals.

ottawaobserver

I just want to ask Unionist and Michelle how things work in their unions and/or organizations, in terms of official media spokespeople giving their personal views on camera.

For example, in a union negotiation, if the bargaining unit voted a certain way, but the vice-president personally felt differently, should that VP be giving an on-camera interview on a picket line saying that s/he disagreed with the strike?

Or, if a social movement decided on the strategy around a certain action, but the spokesperson believed a more militant approach was required, would it be OK for that spokesperson to give their personal view at a news conference announcing the former action.

I would argue NO.  That it's anti-democratic for someone holding a leadership position in either of those two cases to give their personal views at that particular time, because regardless of what they say about whether it's their personal view or the organization's view, it undercuts the decision taken by the group they are representing.

We all understand how this issue has been a minefield from the beginning, and that the road to peace is going to require its advocates to pick their way through those mines very carefully, and stay focused on a way to resolve the longstanding grievances, or at least reconcile them well enough to coexist in some kind of security.

It is an unforced error to give vicious right-wing opponents of a negotiated settlement an opening to spread their venom and misinformation.

It's not that anything is wrong in the abstract.  Sometimes you can be right, but you don't have the right to say it, or at least not at that time, or else saying so at that time is destructive to your objectives; whereas saying it at another time might be more advantageous.

I will say that, as a result of this whole controversy, I have learned a lot more about the issue, and I'm grateful for that.

But I try to think about both what should be the right outcome, and also what's the best way to get there.  It's harder to find the right way to arrive at a non-traditional outcome, in the face of hostile and well-funded opposition.  One has to pick one's steps much more shrewdly.  It's one of the things I've come to admire about Layton, but also Libby for that matter.

So, it's not only a question of picking your issues, but also picking your moments.  I think she regrets the choice, because it may have cut off other openings in the future.  But overall I think they handled it pretty well, and will have perhaps even been able to extend awareness of the issues amongst more people after the dust settles.

Caissa

One could support the partition plan of 1948 and argue that additional land that Israel secured through war constitutes the land which was occupied in 1948. Of course, we all know 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973 are not the issue.

Michelle

Well, I don't think the NDP has actually come up with a one-way-or-the-other policy on BDS, have they?  They haven't got a policy in favour of it, but they also don't have a policy rejecting it, right?

Whereas if someone on the negotiating team of a union local that had just gone on strike said that they were "personally against it" when interviewed by the media, that's different than perhaps that negotiating team member telling the media how they personally felt about some other labour issue that his local didn't have a policy about.

Unionist

ottawaobserver wrote:

I just want to ask Unionist and Michelle how things work in their unions and/or organizations, in terms of official media spokespeople giving their personal views on camera.

I'm not going to engage you in that bureaucratic sort of discussion, OO, because the stakes here are much bigger - the public attacks and degradation of Libby Davies by Stephen Harper and Bob Rae and Thomas Mulcair, combined with the public lectures by Jack Layton and Paul Dewar.

You want to debate whether she violated some protocol by giving her own view - a view which is not in any measurable way contradictory to official NDP policy, except in the eyes of some Israel apologists looking to crush any criticism?

No thank you. Let me know your exact opinions on the propriety of Paul Dewar's and Tom Mulcair's public statements. I'll tell you right away that if any official of our union - including the President - publicly lambasted someone of Libby Davies' integrity and popularity, for having made a slip (at worst) in a hostile interview, that official would suffer the wrath of the members. And our members don't pay much attention to who violated which protocol of who is allowed to say what in which forum. They understand the need for discipline and speaking with one voice, but that's absolutely not what the feeding frenzy against Libby is about.

KenS

I've said before that the comparison with communications around collective bargaining only has very limited usefulness. In collective bargaining only the people with a stake or a relatively close indirect stake are part of the fishbowl. You can't extrapolate from the fact that in collective bargaining there is not the wild and uncontrolled potential for remarks to go ballistic.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

I'd be happy to give it a break, the minute you make a comment about whether Layton, Dewar, and Mulcair acted properly - rather than just harping about how she made a mistake and she knows she made a mistake and she understands she made a mistake. I opened this thread to call for defence of Libby Davies - not every word or every slip she might make - and I'm curious where, exactly, you stand on the larger issue here.

You are choosing to ignore what I say Unionist, and baiting me. More precisiely: pushing me into a corner convenient for you.   I'm no more dodging what you say than it could be said you have dodged what I have said about this.   I think I've made it sufficiently clear that I think its irrelavant what you choose to call 'the proper thing to do in this'.   Inadevertently, Libby jumped on a hot button. It went boom. What follows is to be expected.   Both Libby Davies and I would choose to spend our time on battles you aren't guaranteed to lose. Defending the comments she made is a guaranteed loser, and the futile attempt to defend them would help no one.  You vehemently disagree with that approach to politics. Thats big news. I respect that difference, and don't throw shit at you for the way you go about politics. Kindly return the favour.

And I dont harp on her making a mistake. Far from being "nuanced" about this, people keep throwing in all sorts of other junk, but I think its pretty damn simple: Libby made a mistake [and one that could happen to anyone really, but that doesn't make any difference], and what follows is inevitable.

And if in the course of doing the necessay distancing from Libby on this, that includes puffery that goes beyond 'she didn't speak for the party' to 'she doesn't have a right to speak for the party and won't be' for the microphones.... Thats in the category of don't sweat the small stuff. If you don't like that sort of thing you shouldn't even be arms length from electoral politics.

If Libby was turfed or demoted that would not be small stuff. But honestly, you all don't see any difference.

Unionist

KenS wrote:
Defending the comments she made is a guaranteed loser, and the futile attempt to defend them would help no one.   You vehemently disagree with that approach to politics. Thats big news.   I respect that difference, and don't throw shit at you for the way you go about politics.

You really can't read my words past your own preconceived image of me, can you? This post wasn't that far in the past:

Unionist wrote:
I opened this thread to call for defence of Libby Davies - not every word or every slip she might make - and I'm curious where, exactly, you stand on the larger issue here.

You don't have to answer my question. You do, however, have to avoid attributing to me views that I have never expressed. For your information (if you don't have time to scroll back through 3 threads), I don't agree with Libby's remarks in the interview, and I don't agree with her letter of apology. Nonetheless, I defend and stand up for her - unconditionally - against the attacks by the politicians of three parties, and I ask you and everyone to do the same.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KenS wrote:

You think that, inadevertently or not doesnt matter... think that equating occupation to 1948, the creation of Israel, is "a view which is not in any measurable way contradictory to official NDP policy" and is a little sip, at worst?

I do.  Try listening to her speech at the rally and tell me what you disagree with so I can understand better. 

So Ken are you arguing that there were no injustices done during the birth of Israel?  Or are you of the school of thought that any injustices were the fault of the victims?  If none of the above please enlighten me as too your view on the events of 1948 and why it is outrageous to apply any term like occupation to the events and its effects on the people living there at the time.

Unionist

I was really hoping this thread would focus on the attack against Libby and how we can defend against that. Surely even people of good faith who disagree with each other about the characaterization of 1948 can agree wholeheartedly to defend Libby and condemn the attacks against her - from whatever quarter?

writer writer's picture
Life, the unive...

It is fascinating to watch the pile on and conflating going on in these threads .  The slip by Libby was around 1948.  She herself has acknowledged that and in fact issued a clarification/apology.  Layton, or Dewar for that matter, never questioned her right to say anything else in that interview- although Dewar's comments are a bit confused and confusing as all kinds of MPs from all parties give their views on all kinds of issues- except maybe the Conservatives these days. 

Now Mulcair, Rae, Harper et al are different, but stop dumping them all into the same pot.  Their pot needs to have the heat turned up rathere strongly, but it is a simple conflating things to say her ability to talk about issues has been constrained by Layton.  She wrong-footed on 1948, and it seems to have been a rather simple slip of the tongue as I take her word for it that it does not represent her own views- that was the problem for Layton as far as I can see it, and the end of the matter for him as leader of the NDP.

George Victor

I'd say more, but the powers that be have cast a blanket of immunity over a person who does not care whether he is causing grief to fellow babblers. Please let me ask without being threatened by those powers:  Why provoke, U?   Does it turn you on?  Try for something positive.  Otherwise, know that you are doing damage in a way that only a provocateur (and I am NOT calling you a provocateur, just saying that that's the effect, without intent)  could bring about.    Wake up!  Or as Ken says, get over it.;

ottawaobserver

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Ken are you arguing that there were no injustices done during the birth of Israel?  Or are you of the school of thought that any injustices were the fault of the victims?  If none of the above please enlighten me as too your view on the events of 1948 and why it is outrageous to apply any term like occupation to the events and its effects on the people living there at the time.

I don't know the answer to this question, which is why I'm going to ask it.  Is resolving the conflict in the Middle East helped by answering this question, or is it not?

I've read Wilf for example who argues that the basis for a peace agreement is thought to be 1967 (I might have the year wrong), and that saying 1948 undermines that basis for agreement.  So, if it's counterproductive (an IF), perhaps leave the resolution of that historical question to later.

One can't help on the other hand to draw a comparison with the recent inquiry report on Bloody Sunday.  It's important to know that the British Army did in fact shoot first.  Would it have helped or hurt the Irish peace process to settle that historical fact earlier?  Would it have even been possible?  Who knows, but I'm pretty sure those are important questions to ask.

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

KenS wrote:

You think that, inadevertently or not doesnt matter... think that equating occupation to 1948, the creation of Israel, is "a view which is not in any measurable way contradictory to official NDP policy" and is a little sip, at worst?

I do.  Try listening to her speech at the rally and tell me what you disagree with so I can understand better. 

So Ken are you arguing that there were no injustices done during the birth of Israel?  Or are you of the school of thought that any injustices were the fault of the victims?  If none of the above please enlighten me as too your view on the events of 1948 and why it is outrageous to apply any term like occupation to the events and its effects on the people living there at the time.

Different things entirely. The question was addressed at Unionist who used those words. If he sees it as a distraction, fine.

I think the Nakba was a human catastrophe, that continues to fester. But this isnt about what any of us think.

We have an international aggreement that from 1967 is an occupation. So thats what we talk about in public, regardless that we may think that the injstice runs much further back. Precisely because going further back gets things derailed. Which I'm guessing is a big reason Unionist wants to leave that one alone... not because he doesnt have an opinion.

mybabble

Its a diversion tatic as all it took was a spill out of Libbie's mouth to demand her resignation as the damage done is none existent as surely its going to take more than an a opinion from a NDP Leader to get at that thick skinned lot.   As its bombs away and although Libby may not be of the same opinion there is little doubt she meant no harm.

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

KenS wrote:

You think that, inadevertently or not doesnt matter... think that equating occupation to 1948, the creation of Israel, is "a view which is not in any measurable way contradictory to official NDP policy" and is a little slip, at worst?

I do. 

Just to be clear, theres no question that extending the definition of "occupation" back to 1948 would be a definite and significant diversion from the NDP policy. Its not dated in the policy, but it is definitely understood. [Pecisely because of that same agreed unity around international agreements that set it at 1967.]

KenS

You think that, inadevertently or not doesnt matter... think that equating occupation to 1948, the creation of Israel, is "a view which is not in any measurable way contradictory to official NDP policy" and is a little slip, at worst?

KenS

Cueball wrote:

Indeed before 1967, there was "agreed unity" around international agreements that set dates at 1956 and 1948.

There was. But that isn't the international consensus now, which agrees around the 1967 borders.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Thanks Ken for explicating the point that I am about to make about "forgefulness" and 1967. Indeed before 1967, there was "agreed unity around international agreements" that set dates at 1956 and 1948.

ottawaobserver wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Ken are you arguing that there were no injustices done during the birth of Israel?  Or are you of the school of thought that any injustices were the fault of the victims?  If none of the above please enlighten me as too your view on the events of 1948 and why it is outrageous to apply any term like occupation to the events and its effects on the people living there at the time.

I don't know the answer to this question, which is why I'm going to ask it.  Is resolving the conflict in the Middle East helped by answering this question, or is it not?

Yes because getting an answer pretty much establishes where someone stands on the issue pretty fast.

Libby's crime here is accidentally, moving the goal posts back 20 years. A grevious error, obviously, because Israel and her supporters have worked so hard to erase the numerous cease fires, peace agreements, truces, and so on, that limited Israel's territory, each one in turn broken, almost alway by Israel and new agression resulting in even more siezed territory. It's necessary to forget this so we forget that the inevitable outcome of these so called "peace negotiations" is the creation of new "facts on the ground" that justify Israel's territorial ambitions, as the "agreed" upon status quo.

If we can be made to forget 48, we can certainly be made to forget 67, sometime in the not to far distance future. In fact, for all apparent purposes, it seems the present NDP has forgotten not only 48, but 67 as well, based on the number of times that Jack Layton mentions the date, resolution 224, or anything along those lines, which is never.

So, in fact it is very important to remember 1948, and 56 because they show explicitly just how massive a concession it is for the Palestinians to accept the 1967 Green Line as the base terms for negotiation.

oldgoat

George Victor wrote:

I'd say more, but the powers that be have cast a blanket of immunity over a person who does not care  (snip) ....etc. etc.

 

Personal attack, cut it out.  And speaking of getting over it, whatever 'it' is, try some of that yourself.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Right because the international community has colluded with Israel in the territorial rip-off.

Indeed, it is very important to remember 1948, and 56 because they show explicitly just how massive a concession it is for the Palestinians to accept the 1967 Green Line as the base terms for negotiation. Therefore all discussion about 1967 should be explicitly contextualized in the fact that it is an agreement to surrender at least 50% of the territory alloted to the Palestinians for the creation of an Arab state in 1948.

Furthermore, it needs to be shown just how the chimera of internationally recognized "peace negotiations" has been used time and time again, not to limit Israeli expansion but indeed to reward it an authorize it, as you are doing now by appealing to the so called international "consensus" around 1967, and telling us to forget 56 and 48.

Why should Israel abide by 1967 borders, when the international community has proven time and time again that it will simply accept whatever it is that Israel demands, as it did in 56 and 48?

Israel indeed very effectively manipulated this "forgetfulness" by purposely promoting the idea that in Oslo they gave Palestinians 97% of what they justly deserved (Green Line -3%), and were therefore being intransigent and petty, when in fact, at Oslo Palestinians surrendered 70% of what they had a right to demand, it was Israel that wanted 3% more on top of that 70% that the Palestinians agreed to surrender.

And that extra 3% that was demanded by Israel was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Cueball Cueball's picture

In fact, it is not a mistake at all for Libby to say occupation since 1948, because indeed Israel illegally occupies much territory that is absorbed in 48 and 56, beyond the territory that was allotted to it in 1948 by the UN, and saying such does not necessarily mean that one does not recognize the Israeli state. It is just affirming that Israel's only internationally recognized boundaries are much much smaller than those defined by the 1967 Green Line, and are defined by the UN Partition of 1948.

Everything beyond that point is illegally occupied territory.

Libby's real error was not being well enough informed of the facts to defend the position that she mistakenly asserted. She could easily still recognize Israel's right to exist within the boundaries of the 1948 partition, the only official and internationally certified border that Israel has in international law, and note that everything else is occupied territory.

Boze

If the country in question wasn't the sacred cow Israel nobody would even care.  I sincerely hope she's not going anywhere, the NDP can ill-afford to lose one of its few MPs of substance.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Too true.

But the McCarthyites among us are using the sacred cow to trim the herd of dissenters. It's a pretty simple process really. Anyone with any principles or moral fiber can easily spot the Israeli war crimes and territorial expansionism, and see what it is, and is likely to feel the need to speak up about it when questioned. Thus keying in on this issue is a good way of removing people with moral fiber and principles.

Stockholm

What does 1956 have to do with anything? In that conflict Israel captured the Sinai and then withdrew from it a few months later as part of the Suez settlement - there was no boundary change as a result.

George Victor

oldgoat wrote:

George Victor wrote:

I'd say more, but the powers that be have cast a blanket of immunity over a person who does not care  (snip) ....etc. etc.

 

Personal attack, cut it out.  And speaking of getting over it, whatever 'it' is, try some of that yourself.

 

No, No, old friend, it did not go "etc. etc"  Here it is again:

"I'd say more, but the powers that be have cast a blanket of immunity over a person who does not care whether he is causing grief to fellow babblers. Please let me ask without being threatened by those powers:  Why provoke, U?   Does it turn you on?  Try for something positive.  Otherwise, know that you are doing damage in a way that only a provocateur (and I am NOT calling you a provocateur, just saying that that's the effect, without intent)  could bring about.    Wake up!  Or as Ken says, get over it.;"

 

You seem not to care that such innuendo causes both personal pain and injury to the only party functioning in the political system with any efficacy in the battle described by the posters above. And it's a ubiquitous attack. Also with a "ho ho" spirit, but relentless, like water torture. Take a peek at the thread titled "Wooing the Trekkie vote" , in which NDP MP Finn Donnelly's attempt to bring controls to fish farming because of the associated buildup of sea lice, brings this yuck:June 9, 2010 - 3:42pm #2 (permalink)

 

"Glad to see the NDP creating space for salmon."

 

Pure provocation, but not understood by the powers that be. No wonder New Democrats leave this site, and Gaia knows how many others don't even bother with it. You say cut out the personal attack, and innuendo must not be responded to? I have said to U, openly here, that his knowledge and understanding of the Israel/Palestine struggle is second to none, and I accept his renditiion completely. In fact, I am very very glad to be so informed. But that is far from enough apparently. He does not understand the psychological impact of hisi picayune attacks.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Aren't there enough things that you all agree on?  ..and work that needs to be done right now?

Like an ally who needs defending, regardless of what sort of explanation she gave?

Like a blockade and occupation to be opposed?

Like pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian misinformation and smear campaigns that need to be fought right here in Canada? 

I know the question of dates touches on Libby's statement, but does it really matter that we don't all agree on absolutely everything? 

Some people manage to put aside differences to work on issues alongside anti-choice supporters, fundamentalists, homophobes and (god forbid) Conservatives. Sometimes that is what it takes to get the work done.

I don't mean to offend, but if you can't agree to disagree and get on with it amongst yourselves how do you ever expect to influence the rest of the world?

Besides, I think it is healthy to stay engaged with people who see things differently than I do, especially opponents. It keeps me honest and it keeps me thinking.

But again... OT. We were talking about Libby Davies, no?

Unionist

What about 1963? Are you people seriously suggesting that we should forget about 1963? Am I the only one here who cares about 1963? For God's sake - 1963!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

What does 1956 have to do with anything? In that conflict Israel captured the Sinai and then withdrew from it a few months later as part of the Suez settlement - there was no boundary change as a result.

Not really.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sorry if this is confusing for you.

Unionist

Cueball, how about if I actually beg you (who are of good faith here) and the diversionary ones to open a new thread on the issue: "When did the occupation begin?" I promise to contribute to it. My opinion happens to be the same as yours. But you can't defend Libby Davies by proving that it began in 1948, because she friggin' RETRACTED that comment. She doesn't actually know much about the whole thing. Her heart is in the right place, and for that reason she has come under vitriolic attack from cowardly pro-Zionist scum in all three parties. Can't we please, please keep that huge issue separate from the discussion that certain others here would love to substitute for it?

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Cueball

Yes, I do understand why you are discussing it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Like an ally who needs defending, regardless of what sort of explanation she gave?

Like a blockade and occupation to be opposed?

Like pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian misinformation and smear campaigns that need to be fought right here in Canada? 

I know the question of dates touches on Libby's statement, but does it really matter that we don't all agree on absolutely everything?

 

Understanding the precise historical context of the relationship between 1948 and 1967 is absolutely fundamental to combating misinformation. Indeed the charge against Libby is that in using the 1948 date she is denying Israel's "right to exist". If we are to give any credibility to the charge that denying Israel's "right to exist" is some kind of serious offense, then of course, we have to examine the basis of that right, and that right exists in law entirely on the basis of the 1948 partition.

The occupied zone of Israel exceeded that deliniation long before 1967, indeed as early as 1949, Israel was occupying terrirtory outside of its UN mandates border.

Understanding this is fundamental to unravelling the issue of the 1967 Green Line, and what in fact the Palestinian leadership has conceded by accepting the 1967 border as the defacto legitimate boundary of Israel.

The misinformation in question, is the idea that the Palestinian leadership was intransigent and petty, when in fact they were exceedingly generous in offering to recognize the "right" of Israel to exist in territories far beyond it's legally sanctioned mandate under the 1948 partition.

Gush Shalom: Barak's Generous Offer

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I vote for 1923

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
Libby's real error was not being well enough informed of the facts to defend the position that she mistakenly asserted. She could easily still recognize Israel's right to exist within the boundaries of the 1948 partition, the only official and internationally certified border that Israel has in international law, and note that everything else is occupied territory.

 

I don't think she erred at all, and she certainly has nothing to apologise for.

Nobody agreed to the 1947 UN partition plan, nor does the Zionist state have borders that it recognises itself today, thus any quibble over whether the 1948 or 1967 border is correct is moot.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

Cueball, how about if I actually beg you (who are of good faith here) and the diversionary ones to open a new thread on the issue: "When did the occupation begin?" I promise to contribute to it. My opinion happens to be the same as yours. But you can't defend Libby Davies by proving that it began in 1948, because she friggin' RETRACTED that comment. She doesn't actually know much about the whole thing. Her heart is in the right place, and for that reason she has come under vitriolic attack from cowardly pro-Zionist scum in all three parties. Can't we please, please keep that huge issue separate from the discussion that certain others here would love to substitute for it?

 

I see absolutely no reason not do discuss the facts surrounding Libby's statements, and indeed, it is apparent to me that even thoguh Libby is about the best the NDP has to offer on this, and many other topics, she and others on the left are woefully unprepared to understand these issues in the context of the massive disinformation that is being used as a basis for the Rae attack upon her.

The fact is that there was nothing wrong with her statement, and I personally don't feel like I or anyone should feel that they are somehow stepping into the realm of being an anti-semite for uncovering the facts of Israeli occupation that has existed since 1948.

If you give them an inch, you will end up giving them a mile, and in this context Libby's appology is that inch. Yes, she made a mistake, but no, Rae has no right to attack her on this point, even if she did not make a mistake.

Talking about Occupation since 1948, is not to deny the "Right of Israel to Exist", even when one accepts the legality of partition itself. I have every right to undermine this falacy being disseminated by Rae. Indeed Rae is trying to deligitimize statements that I am making here, and also those just posted by Al Q above.

Accepting Libby's appology is tacit acceptance of Rae's position.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hey George. oldgoat is a volunteer moderator. He said cut it out. That means stop.

One more time, George, and you will have some time away from babble.

Unionist

Who the hell "accepted" Libby's apology? It was a capitulation demanded by Layton. It aped the newfound party line, which distorts history and the way forward.

But don't you grasp that there are all kinds of people who will support Libby against this egregious McCarthyite persecution, even though they don't know, and don't care, about fine points of history, and you will never convince them? Don't you have any sense of politics, where you unite with people even though they don't share your unparalleled understanding of the universe?

I guess I've answered my own question. Try working in a trade union sometime. Or in any movement. You learn very fast when to debate the issues (all the time), and when to unite and move forward (all the time). But in your acceptance of this diversion (by certain diehard NDP partisans), you stop that unity dead in its tracks. At this point, I don't even know if you are defending Libby or not. Not her words - Libby.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:
Don't you have any sense of politics, where you unite with people even though they don't share your unparalleled understanding of the universe?

Yes. This is why it is absolutely essential not to give an credibility to Rae's statement at all. There is much more than Libby Davies to defend at this point. And the pervasive use of this "anti-semitism" mantra being leveled at people for telling the truth must be opposed.

There is a whole movement to be defended here, and accepting Libby's appology as appropriate is just being a Rae stooge.

We do a greater service to Libby and the intent of her original statements by using the "political space" she wanted to "open up" than by barricading the door.

Pages

Topic locked