Thomas Mulcair's support for Israel 2

Thanks, Catchfire!

 Brian's response in the star is good, very good, to the issue of Isreal.

Tom's was better and far more detailed.

Thomas Mulcair for the win.

Er, Topp was quoted in an interview with many questions, and then edited. Mulcair's response was unpublished. Knowing Topp's soft spot for policy papers, I have no doubt he has an equally detailed response kicking around somewhere. Indeed, we might hear about it when Brian comes on babble tomorrow.

Still no response from Mulcair's camp. Perhaps his supporters here could try to convince him?

Yes indeed.   Piss on the Palestinians if it gets in the way of the dippers winning a couple more seats.

Having been an eye witness a few years ago to the kind of crap that Palestinians go through on a daily basis, I can not in good conscience play this bullshit game.

Its called practical reality, Canada could recognize Palestian till its blue in face, if Isreal does not, then it has no practical effect. Its a feel good fantasy not grounded in reality.

After all the blood shed, tears, and border issues, possible land swaps, and the Gods know what else to deal with, all practical issues resolved by negiotation.

Even if Isreal recognized a Palestian state, Negiotations would be needed because every divorce needs one, its how you figure out who gets the dog, the cat, and Barry White Albums.

And most of all it provides closesure for everyone and doesn't leave lose ends. A far more pyschological sound approach and one that will last.

I just don't get what you think recognatizing Palastian without Isreal achieves, because Isreal just flips you the bird gets more defensive and none of the practical issues get addressed.

I honestly don't believe independance without Isreal will achieve reconcilation, which is needed for lasting peace.

At great risk, let me enter the fray.

First off, I blame the Romans.  Really, what have the Romans ever given us...

Negotiations are, ulltimately, the only way that this will be decided.  Both sides (feel free to pick your greater transgressor as you see fit) have found it convenient to play for time - and by "play" I mean engage in violence - overt, covert, implied - to gall the other side, agravate the situation, disturb progress, undermine the "doves" on their own side and embolden the "hawks" on the other.  The suffering, again on both sides (and again feel free to pick your more wounded victem) has made it all but impossible to see a way out.  That there are lights, on both sides, who still struggle to end this through peaceful means is a credit to them all.  Blessed are the peacemakers indeed.

If both sides of this dispute, here and there, feel that establishing their status as "more wronged" is a precondition to negotiations then we can pick this discussion up in another generation after a new round or twenty of incidents, provocations and calamities.

I am a lawyer and I work in family law.  Divorces, custody and access fights, etc.  As with most divorces, the outline of the eventual resolution is understood by almost everyone in the room long before the two former spouses understand how it is all going to end. We have known for some time now what the outcome will look like and it is as stated above.  It really doesn't matter (save for the waste of time, money, misery and wasted lives) that one side is more culpable than the other or that the last attempt at peace was scuttled by one side or the other.  Eventually they will get there.

Mulcair's statement from 2008,"in all situations and in all circumstances", seems to be contradicted by his more recent, and more detailed, repudiation of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank being a violation of 4th Geneva Convention.  I actually would take the position, myself here - not speaking for anyone else - that condemning the settlements is in fact very supportive of Israeli interests, even if those interests are not acknowledged as such by the current Israeli government.  Indeed the strongest proponents for a two-state solution should be the Israelis themselves - if only because the alternative threatens the fundamental character of Israel iteslf.

Unionist, for the sake of arguement can you tell me the borders of the Palestinian state that we should recognize?  Is its capital in Ramalah, with Fatah, Gaza City, with Hamas, or Jerusalem, with Bibby?  

I'm not criticizing the effort to go for a unilateral declaration, it is an excellent negotiating tactic by a rather weak player in the game to make the UN pitch - and it has had marked success, particularly in fostering a potential raprochement between Hamas and Fatah.  In the end, however, the resolution will require both sides (and all sides of those two sides) to accept the legitimacy of the other's status.  It is the only way.  Certainly it is the only way that has any prospect of a lasting resolution and in this the relative Palestinian "weakness" is a strength - they have as much say in whether the agreement comes to pass as the much more powerful Israeli side.  Politics, and history, are complicated at the best of times.  In the Middle-East there is a magnification of that complication many fold.  If Mulcair, or any of the candidates (or any of us here) have stumbled in trying to piece the path of angels together here we are in good company.  Is the above stated goal contrary to what you would advocate or just the percieved means to reach that goal?

The contradiction is only apparent and formal. And you hit it at the end there. Israel knows that it cannot get unqualified from all of 'friends of Israel'. So many of them publicly distance themselves from the massacre in Gaza, and commonly say that the degree of settlement is 'not helpful'. They are still helpful friends when they do what they can to undermine the development of 'excessive demands' on Israel.

Friends of Israel know that Mulcair's "in all situations and in all circumstances" does not require literaly parroting what comes out of Jerusalem.

[see below - past the posts of someone who doesn't want to discuss the issue]

Well said, I do agree getting unilateral recognation maybe a good tactic, but that tactic doesn't depend on many nations support it, because its all a dog and pony show without Isreal.

Argh I hate arguing about the Middle East, like some how peace will be secured in Canada. It'll be secured when all sides want it bad enough and make it a priority.

Anywho I've said all I plan to on this issue, the modern middle east is my single least favourite region to disguss and I bet its the same for most Canadians.

How about a thread on various candiates on Greeces debts or China's growing nationalization of Canada's natural resources like the Oilsands? Anyone want to a threads on,this. How about the candiates on fair trade treaty with Hugo Chavez?

Is someone forcing you to discuss the Middle East?

If you want threads on the candidates' stands on Greece or China or Chavez, then why don't you start one?  Those who want to talk about Israel can do so here, and you can talk about the other issues in other threads.

I can never understand why people post in a thread on a certain topic that they don't want to talk about that topic anymore.  The first several posts of the part one thread to this one was filled with people whining about how tired they are of talking about this subject, and doing melodramatic digital "yawns".

It's really easy - just don't talk about it if you don't want to.  Don't read the thread and don't post in it if you're so tired of reading and talking about the subject. 

And if you think other issues are more worth your while, then start threads on them and fill your boots.

After Canada reads Israel the riot act, will the magic words summon a unicorn that banishes the Israelis from occupied territory?

Surely you can do better than this. Is this the kind of question on which you base most of your ethical decisions? What use (with a very narrow definition of "use")?

This sophistry is not only offensive, it's diversionary from the thread topic, and it's contrary to babble's anti-imperialist policy. But I think that's the kind of crap that's stirred up to the surface by this kill-or-be-killed NDP leadership race, where anything goes.

So does Mulcair support the Palestinian statehood bid?  That's a more meaningful question than these vacuous "I support the two state solution/Obama"* type statements.  That's good enough to pass the NDP-correctness test.

But, that doesn't make it right, and ultimately it's a question of justice, not passing the minimum threshold in the NDP.  The question was specifically asked and discussed at the Concordia University debate. Ashton, Cullen, Nash, Singh and Topp all stated they supported it.  The Middle East usually doesn't come up in these debates, so it's unfortunate Mulcair wasn't there.

(* BTW the statehood bid is opposed by the White House). 

Still no answer on that front. I wonder if he actually saw the CJPME press release. There's a small probability he or his campaign did, which lends credibility to people who say he's being deliberately evasive. But I still wouldn't jump to a conclusion.

Don't tell me what I want. I don't endorse imperialism masquerading as liberation, and I don't think that sitting back and being humble is helping the Palestinean cause either. The most effective thing that Canada can do is still to play the role of mediator. That means we have to hold our tongue on reading the riot act, but then, that probably means we can do without the "strong supporter" statements for either side.

One would hope that around here people would know that without 'support' from the US and Canada- little things like a military budget for example- Israel would be absolutely compelled to take an entirely different approach with the Palestinian. Having friends like 'us' is why such a small country can force its will and ignore international opinion.

Unionist, here's the Concordia debate.  It starts at about 1:20:00 in the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUd64ez8x-A

(At least none of them say "we support Obama."  I would say all operate in the "2 state solution" framework but Mulcair is certainly more on the pro-Israel end of the NDP spectrum than the others.) 

I think we cross-posted. Compare this to my previous post.

As long as Israel has friends like us, it goes after keeping everything permanently. Friends like us mean all they have to do is mouth words about negotiation and peace while they keep gobbling everything up and building more walls.

Mediate what?

Of course there have to be negotiations. But there cannot be negotiations as long as Israel makes them impossible and gets everything it wants anyway.

Thanks for digging this up. Watching those five candidates supporting the bid with such reasonableness makes me proud. I do wish Mulcair were here so we could at least have him on record, if not in agreement. I'd be embarassed for the party if he were against it, which he may very well be.

This is somewhat more reasonable. But I still disagree, especially after having watched the clip from the Concordia debate. Nathan Cullen summed it up best for me, that a restoration of international credibility on this issue is a restoration of balance. I'm radically committed to that balance, and I think most (if not) all the candidates take that approach. We have far more influence as a mediator that brings parties together, than as the dissenter that somehow changes world opinion. Mediation HAS to be a voluntary process, and if the mediator is seen as pressuring one side, they no longer have legitimacy.

Hi, Ken. I support mediation, as it happens. You must be thinking of someone else? What I oppose is the notion that Palestine can only come into being at a bargaining table with Israel.

But why are we having this debate about our views, when the issue in this thread is to determine Mulcair's position (and by extension, that of the other candidates)?

[That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer.]

To be clear, we've been discussing for some time things that have almost nothing to do with the positions of the NDP and the candidates.

That happens because people bring up what supposedly needs to hapen because of X and Y political realities.

Yeah, while we're getting some interesting ideas here, I agree that we should be comparing the candidates to each other, and not to our preferred policies. None of the candidates are proposing tougher pressure on Israel, let alone a uniltateral move towards statehood without Israel at the bargaining table.

As far as I can tell, the only major difference is that 5 candidates support the UN bid, and Mulcair was conveniently absent. Considering his campaign director caught the thread on babble, and there's a small chance he thus caught the CPJME paper, there's an increasing chance that absence was more than convenient for Mulcair.

Unionist, thanks for reading my post.

As for international law, a UDI is perfectly valid but like many international law questions there is more to it than what you do alone.  Others, including your neighbour - Israel - is going to be part of answering this question.  This is not because of my personal take on it (ironically whenever I wade into this I'm alternatively accused of being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel, depends on whose sensibilities my foolish effort to see both sides makes me so disrespectful of :-)

Is Palestine a state?  If they aren't they sure are close, but close may not be enough - at least just yet.

Permanent population?  Given.

Defined territory?  You (quite properly) propose the 1967 boundaries - a little bit of Egypt, Trans-Jordan (made less "Trans" by giving up one of the banks) and Syria (or not) - and that is fine.    The negotiation necessity here is that there is not effective capacity for the Palestinians to exercise sovereignty over that territory, it being occupied and all.  The illegal settlements notwithstanding (and they are no small matter at this point - and I include East Jerusalem in this catagory, fear not) - the legal situation is of an unconcluded war.  Wars are resolved, ultimately, through a negotiation.  If the defeated nations of that war are not parties to the negotiaton (which may well be the case here), certainly the more militarily successful party is at the table.

A government?  Well the PA/Hamas divide is a bit of a sticky wicket here.  There are two governments, which somewhat complicates the whole single Palestanian state issue.  To their credit both Fatah and Hamas have recognized that they need each other and need an accomodation but it will be as challenging a negotiation as the ultimate Israeli-Palestanian talks.  On the question of legitimacy, and law, you will recall that Fatah seized the governance of the PA after Hamas won the Palestinian election.  This is the party making the pitch for the UN bid.  While well justified on grounds of morality, legally this is a government that was NOT elected by the people they are preporting to represent.  Technicality to be sure but the whole "law" thing, even in the far more wishy-washy field of international law, would raise an eyebrow at that inconvenient fact.  Ironically the UN bid was seen as a way for Fatah to try and both undermine and prod Hamas back to the table (which it seems to have accomplished).

A capacity to conduct international relations?  This is where the UN bid comes into play for Canada - and for us in the NDP.  The recognition at the Security Council isn't going to occur - today - but there are a host of international bodies that the Palestinain representative can be elevated from observer to state.  I believe that there may well be merit to backing this course of action but I'm not sure that the Palestinian statehood bid of 2012 is as well founded as one in the 1990's might have been.  If you are not able to manage your own borders, conduct trade across your own borders or manage your own ports - even if this deplorable state of affairs is because you are essentially occupied - you are not a state.  Pointing out this reality does not make one an apologist for the occupying power - it actually is an absolute necessity if we are going to engage in a course of action that brings about a resolution.  How supportive will Canada be of a Scottish bid for international recognition if it is a murky legal mess following an inconclusive referendum?  The Basqe?  Idaho?  Would we expect the world to recognize an independent Quebec on a 50%+1 vote?  And if the Cree vote differently?  When you are in opposition you can safely make black and white calls?  When you are going to ask for the keys to the car you had better be sure that you know the rules of the road.

Now, I hope that one can be critical of Israeli conduct in the occupation (which I am) without necessarily believing that Palestine meets the test for statehood (which I have to say, however close they may be, they don't yet meet).  I would hope that one can point to the corruption of Fatah (which was cause of Hamas' election) and the "push them into the sea" rhetoric of Hamas as being legitimate problems that need to be addressed by the Palestinians without being accused of being an Likudnik.  I would hope that one can point to the endemic economic warfare and physical acts of war (from the petty to the humiliating to the shameless disregard for civilian life in "collective punishment" strikes into residential areas) being waged by Israeli security forces against Palestinian civilians under the guise of security without being labeled a friend of terrorists.  Insiting on negotiation between Israel and Palestine is NOT an empowerment of Israel (they are ALREADY empowered - the are the occupying power FFS!) it is an absolute necessity to make a lasting deal that works and that is an empowerment of Palestine.

You can choose to label all those holding positions that do not conform exactly to your own as equally repugnant, that is your perogative, but you will excuse me that I choose to see some daylight between them.  Perhaps the failing is mine but I tend to look for the gradations of grey in most human situations - particularly this one.  As to how this impacts my view of Mulcair, I do not see the villian you do.

You know what I find particularly strange?

The NDP and certain NDP politicians make a point of their support for the Israeli state .  Things like NDP MLAs speaking at rallies supporting the Gaza Massacre, NDP MPs sitting on the CPCCA, all these little economic partnerships between Manitoba and Israel whose stated purpose is to promote the notion that Canada and Israel have shared values* and therefore the Israeli state should be supported in all their practices, having MLAs denounce IAW, Mulcair denouncing Libby Davies, etc.

Obviously, if the NDP and certain NDP politicians are taking the time and effort to make grandiose and not-so-grandiose displays of their support for Israel, they clearly think it is an important issue.

Okay, fair enough, it's an important issue.  I agree.

Yet, when it comes to a place like babble or other spaces of discussion where people are more critical of pro-apartheid policies, the line changes. All of the sudden, this important issue becomes irrelevant.  "Why do you have to talk about Palestine," they say, "when there are bigger issues out there, issues that more people care about."  Well, if this whole thing is an issue that no one cares about, why does the NDP have to pander to the other side?

If I'm to be told that Palestine is an irrelevant issue and nobody cares about it, therefore we shouldn't even talk about it, I'd expect the same from the NDP and from my government - instead of them taking a vocal pro-Israel stance.

It's like walking around with a sign and shouting into a megaphone "Increase military funding!" then when someone says "well, actually I think disarmament is a better policy," shouting at them "Military funding is such a small issue, why are you talking about military funding when there's people out of work at home yada yada?"

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If, say, an NDP politician wants to promote Israeli apartheid, it's not our responsibility to hush hush about it.  By taking the time and effort to make a public statement, politicians are throwing it out there to be picked apart around watercoolers and on places like babble.

Alternatively, when opponents of taking a strong line on Palestinian solidarity claim that Canada is irrelevent and a minor player of no consequence, why is it that the Canadian government takes such a harsh line, and provides so much support to the Israeli state that Yves Engler was able to fill a book about it?  If what Canada does in the Middle East is of no consequence, then why have various Canadian governments spent so much time, effort and money to support Israeli apartheid?

*I suppose technically apartheid is a shared value between Canada and Israel

Clearly, going off on diatribes is far more fulfilling.

- Rabble.ca

That's silly.

Do you have the capability to put a hard question to Mulcair within 24 hours?

I'm sure it will happen eventually, but not likely quickly.

Most of those who go to meet and greets are favourably disposed to the candidate. Even if you live in the same city, which a lot of us don't, getting to them is not trivial. It's almost rare that people go for the express purpose of asking a challenging questions. People go out of sincere interest in the particular candiate.

You know, no matter how you approach this, this is a no-win for everybody. I say time and demographiscs will take care of this, long after we are all dust.

Because you need to add your voice, even for the split instant required by the process, to theirs?...to this?  Saying thanks but no thanks is a voice too.

Maysie, for many of us the NDP is a compromise. This race is not eliciting and hope or excitement in me.

dp

Agreed.

I've supported Mulcair very directly in three consecutive elections, notwithstanding everything I know about his stand on Israel and Palestine. There were bigger issues at stake. You can make a choice like that with your eyes open, or shut. What really disturbs me is those who don't want the truth to be told about him. Their attitude is far more dangerous for progressive politics than his.

Ahh..realism...*snap*...damn it!

"The NDP position on this issue, which is and always has been my
position, seeks to achieve a lasting peace. That should be the only goal."

The people who believe in an NDP victory and replacement of the dictatorship of Steve are NOT buying the minutae of an argument without end and seeminly with only another purpose.

As we have learned, that simply leaves Steve in the Cat Bird's seat of a nation more concerned with jobs, making a living, having a life after work, and quite ignorant of the history of Palestine. My father marched about in puttees there in the last years of the First War, helping to get the Turks to back off (talk about Rome!) The Ashkenazi (hope I got that ight) would have solved it politically some years back, except their political leader was shot.And all those folks living in Arab states around the Meditteranean were forced to emigrate to Israel, wearing huge chips on their shoulders and no intention of living amicably beside their oppressors. (Read Saul Bellow's trip to Israel in 1973).

No, if we can somehow get the message out to Canadians at large, (the Great Misled thanks to right wing ownership of the press) and Israelis can overcome the propaganda of fear (and one can understand fear, in Israel, and the ease with which it is used to manipulate opinion) an NDP government could help to end this tragedy of errors.

But obviously, it will not begin with babble, where little consideration is given (none in fact, by some) for the internal events in both Israel and Palestine.

But, of course, neither is the condition of the average CAnadian voter considered by the Puritans. That would only come with recognition of the "unpure" state of reasoning AND ethics out there in the land of (melting) snow and ice.And one would be naive, indeed, to expect that level of reasoning to ever appear hereabouts.

Some say, no use ranting about it from a postion of opposition where the chances of being able to bring about peace is that of our having snowball fights in February, down the road.

But wait, environment is another issue, perhpas important to a lot of parents and grandparents. Does not count in this determinedly single-minded attempt to destroy an evil candidate.:)

Where is an all-knowing electorate?

Back to the barricades.

I don't think people raise Mulcair's quote to show his approach is ideal so much as it's the same basic approach as all the other NDP candidates. Again, no candidate has stated that Palestinean independence is going to come without a negotiation. A few have said that the UN bid is an important step, and I take those candidates on good faith to mean that they support the UN bid. But as Unionist pointed out, some of their answers are less direct than others, with Mulcair's non-answer being the least direct of all. Mind you, he's never been asked a direct question to my knowledge, either.

Thanks for transcribing, Unionist. I think Cullen gave the best answer, IMO. (The best of the candidates, that is.)

I know I sounded like an opportunistic pragmatist in my last post about "electability".  What I wanted to emphasize was NOT that the NDP should seek power at the cost of becoming a neoliberal wannabe party or of trying to please everyone. In fact, in an earlier post I expressed the opinion that the NDP platform has to remain strong and  become clearer, if it is to attract red tories, left-of-centre liberals and some greens. 

On the other hand, given that before, during and after the next election campaign,  the whole party and the leadership in particular will come under extraordinary pressure from Bay St. and Warshington (and NATO), it is not unwise to prioritize its battles -- taxation, tar sands, energy, military hardware, etc.   .  Canada is no Venezuela nor will those forces allow it to become like Venezuela or any social-democratic country. 

Of course I will find it very very hard to vote  for a leader whose stated position on the Middle East is the most suspect of all the candidates'.  But I don't for a minute believe (a) that the NDP stands a chance of winning a parliamentary  majority if the Zionists go into overdrive to prevent it, or (b) that whoever is elected will not cave in under US-Israeli pressures, once in office, and change his or her tune.  

Of course I admire Cynthia McKinney,always have.   But we saw how quickly she was marginalized and her congressional career destroyed by the Zionist interests.  We're about to elect a national party  leader AND a parliamentary majority, not just an individual MP. 

So yes, on principle, I would not vote for Mulcair or any candidate who keeps repeating the same useless "negotiated two-state solution" mantra, but at the same time I don't know which candidate is immune from being "McKinneyed" should he or she speak up strongly for the Palestinian people.   And I   suspect that Harper's Xtian Zionists as well as the LPC would make life hell for every single NDP candidate, all over Canada, by  gleefully tarring her or him with the same brush as the party's new "anti-semitic" leader.  How much time and energy should any candidate have to devote to rebutting that slander instead of going on the attack about all the other issues?

 And ultimately I trust (or hope) the grassroots of the Party will remain engaged after the election, to keep the leadership on a progressive path, regarding the Middle East AND  the NDP's socialist principles and program.

I don't have it now, but Jack Layton replied to me by email last summer explaining that the NDP would not be supporting a long war in Libya. 

And in truth the NDP did support a no-fly zone over Libya, apparently to prevent Gadaffi's air force from bombing Libyans. The NDP's position could also have been interpreted as concern for the safety of civilians. There was never any proof that Libya's air force were attacking civilians, however. Russian officials said their satellite reconnaissance photos depicted no evidence for it happening.

Hitler's generals didn't actually support long wars either.  They wanted them short and swift, or not at all.

Fidelio, you're like the used car salesman of an NDP car lot that has to try to sell that lemon we both know is a lemon and why. Sorry no sale today.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/02/21/ndp-frontrunner-mulcair-tackles-electoral-cooperation-israel-and-marijuana-town?page=0,0

BTW: I don't recall Jack Layton ever suggesting that anti-Zionism was anti-Semitic, as Mulcair did.  

As a matter of fact, Mulcair didn't even answer the question put to him, if that article quotes him accurately.  Schnaid asked him to share with the audience how his view differs from Stephen Harper's.  He didn't offer any way that his view on the issue was different than Harper's - he just sidestepped the question, invoked Jack's name, and made a vague statement about supporting the two state solution that even Stephen Harper probably could have made without his nose growing.  An interesting strategy, I guess, but not very convincing.

Reminds me of oldgoat's amusing comment that he made when we were watching the first debate at a pub: "If invoking Jack Layton's name was a drinking game, Mulcair would have had all of us under the table an hour ago."

"if that article quotes him accurately."

But it seems the innuendo is not stopped by the possibility that second or third-hand evidence isn't worth a fiddler's fart. Not for a mind made up, like much of the muck-raking indulged in here, dressed up as speculation.

And I don't believe that any of this would have been accepted/tolerated by Jack, who was interested in growing the party and bringing it to power to achieve something for the people of this country. I want to see an end to the despoilation of our atmosphere, an end to the threat of climate change that's facing my granddaughter. Time's running out, while you throw facetious barbs at a guy who's bust his gut organizing for years. With party people like you, it's no wonder that social democracy and "the left" generally just wind up a fractured rump in Parliament.

If this thread's discussion represents Mainstreet sentiment,where everything depends on a kind of he said/she said concern for Mulcair on Israel, there isn't a hope in hell of reaching a goal. And why don't you folks read some of the history of that area to understand that it's not a simple morality play?There's no prize for appearing to be the most concerned about the fate of humanity there.

My read of the concerns of Canadians in a poll printed in the Globe today says bugger all about your all-consuming concern, but Steve will make sure that all of the country covered by his machine will know it.

Thanks for that find, NDPP. It's a good dose of reality. Layton, like all the others, preached that a Palestinian state can only come about by agreement with Israel - or excuse me, through "negotiations". As if the internationally recognized borders are somehow in doubt. As if Palestine can't exist unless Israel says it can (of course, the reverse doesn't hold true). Some of the current crop of candidates seem to be taking a more open-minded view. Mulcair is not one of them.

I still maintain that the difference between the NDP and the Cons/Libs is bigger than the differences between NDP candidates and each other. But that's to say nothing of the difference between the NDP candidates and what babblers' preferred/ideal policy would be.

Sure, if Topp had previously led a sustained attack along with the two opposition parties on a colleague for taking a progressive stand on the issue, and had made it clear that he felt that criticism of Israel = anti-semitism.  Then yes, definitely, such a quote within that context would be worrying indeed.

I was just making the point that it isn't just Mulcair.

And maybe Tom realizes that he'll get attacked for saying the same things Jack said... that just because he's Tom Mulcair it's perceived differently... and feels a need to attach Jack to it :)

I bet you would have loved to be in on that conversation between Jack and the Israeli Ambassador? And somehow that was leaked to the media...

As deputy leader, he essentially said it was wrong for Libby to freelance on the issue since she was also a deputy leader. It was one comment.

If it had been someone else who went off message like that, say Pat Martin, I'm sure no one would have batted an eyelash over it.

We'll just keep going in circles on this as before. But as deputy leader, Libby has responsibilty not to go off script... and that was the issue. He didn't call for her to resign, didn't call her anti-semetic, etc.

I don't see why you have to rub it in, Michelle. What a terribly low blow.

Strangely, that's what Dewar supporters are saying about his French.  Nothing to see here, just water under the bridge.

We'll keep going around in circles if we talk about Dear's French.  Better talk about something else instead.

Wow, Hunky.  So, now you're comparing what Libby said on the video to making anti-feminist statements against abortion?

Libby wishing for political space to open up to discuss Palestinian rights activism is the same thing as taking a public stand against abortion?

Incredible.  Keep digging.

Get used to it Michelle. Hunky seems very hunkered down. Obfuscation is hir expertise.

*eyeroll*

Enough said.