babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
LP,
My point is that, as SDM has pointed out, Nash, Mulcair and the other leadership candidates are generally on the same page w/ regards to the Middle East. None of the candidates support IAW, for e.g. One of Nash's leading backers, was as strident (if not more strident) as Mulcair in condemning it. I am genuinely curious if Nash shares DiNovo's perspective on this issue. My suscpision is that, while Nash may present her POV in a more "diplomatic" way, she would not disagree w/ the substance of DiNovo's position. You are getting your hopes up if you think any of the leadership candidates would adopt a highly critical stance vis a vis Israel.
My secondary point, is that while you may disagree w/ the nuances of a candidate's position the Middle East, that does not mean that you cannot in good conscience support him/her. I used the hypothetical example of DiNovo running for the ONDP leadership. I suspect a lot of Nash supporters would endorse her (b/c of her other qualities), while disregarding the way in which she outlined her views on Israel/Palestine.
AFAIK Mulcair is the only NDP leadership candidate who joined the anti-IAW pile-on.
Jack Layton joined on the pile on too, and said "apartheid" was inappropriate.
Or did you only mean current leadership candidates?
Did Layton say he didn't like or didn't agree with the apartheid reference, or did he actually join in the condemnation of universities for holding Israel Apartheid Week? There's a difference (maybe not enough of one, but to say Mulcair was just doing the same as Layton is absurd.)
Arthur, your words describe almost exactly my evolution as a Canadian Jew as well, though being older, maybe I got there a few years earlier. It was actually 1967 that settled the issue for me, though I was quite young. I saw Israel launching a "pre-emptive" war, but I was sure they would return to their borders once peace was established. As the months went by, I realized that they had no such intention. I remember my dad telling me that Begin was a terrorist, but then when he became prime minister, saying: Well, but still, we have to support Israel, what choice do we have? I decided I had a choice. And as a Jew, I came to understand that Israel was not only toxic for the people of the region, it was toxic for all Jews - a living declaration that we can no longer live among the nations of the world, where we and are ancestors were born, but that we have to live in our "own" state - on land stolen from others, to boot.
It hasn't been easy to maintain that stand. But it's gratifying to see so many Jews standing up and rejecting the role of oppressor, and the self-imposed ghetto. That's why it makes me sick when someone says, "Oh, Mulcair is pro-Israel because of all the Jews in his riding". Mulcair is pro-Israel because he has no feeling for the oppressed and subjugated of that region. He is pro-Israel for the same reason that official NDP policy always has been (even if his flavour is much more extreme): Because it's easier than the alternative. He can say, "hey, I'm just saying the same as Obama".
Which mainstream politician can I, or any pro-Palestinian activists, compare our views about Israel and Palestine to? Of course, there are none. Not even Libby Davies, because she has been bludgeoned into silence.
At least we can still say our piece on a progressive discussion board. Right?
LP, I agree with you about Mulcair, but please don't kid yourself too much about Nash or Topp or the rest.
He said he didn't agree with the apartheid reference. No comment on the condemnation. To be clear, I never said it was the same.
But you said that Layton "joined the pile on too." But what Mulcair wasn't just expressing disagreement with a word, he joined the right-wing attack on univiersites for 'allowing' IAW to take place.
Unionist is of course to point out that there are problems with Nash, Topp, etc. and the two state solution idea. The fact that Mulcair however is within "acceptable" bounds of NDP policy is abhorrent. That's because saying that "I support the two state solution" means you're within acceptable discourse (BTW John Baird too is on record stating he supports the two state solution.)
And at least the other candidates are putting their money where their mouth is and supporting the Palestinian statehood bid, not echoing the right-wing strategy of expressing support for the two state solution but giving Israel a veto power over whether the other partner's offers are acceptable.
My question is still whether it's fair to say he's outside the NDP on this issue, let alone that he's indistinguishable from Harper.
I appreciate Unionist conceding that no NDP MPs that would qualify as pro-Palestinean in his books, and that the differences between the leadership candidates are slight. I also lament it. Unionist has a legitimate viewpoint that warrants representation, and in a big tent party committed to peace we do need some pro-Palestinean voices to balance the pro-Israel ones, as part of a consensus for just peace between two states.
I've been doing a little bit more research. Navigating the parliamentary debates is excruciatingly hard. You won't hear any denial from me that Mulcair has done some grandstanding on his support for Israel. I just want to know the policy consequences of that.
I did find this:
"KAIROS is also funded by the governance sector of CIDA. Despite the fact that KAIROS is internationally recognized and respected, CIDA has withdrawn all $7 million of its funding. Coincidentally, we learned today from Elizabeth Thompson of Sun Media that $7 million is precisely the amount paid by the Conservatives to their own political staff for all kinds of bonuses. What is the Conservatives' priority: world peace or lining their own pockets?"
Which is consistent with his other statement calling for better aid to Palestinean refugees and so on. That doesn't make him Libby Davies, but it definitely makes him a New Democrat, which I hope is enough for all of us.
Utterly false - and indeed, a very interesting style of argumentation.
Of course, anyone can read my comments for themselves and recognize the distortion and misinterpretation. If anyone has any difficulty with parsing my posts above, please let me know and I'll bore everyone with an elaboration.
Couldn't find much else. But I though it was reassuring to see this quote about NATO (in the conext of Afghanistan), for all the people who thought he'd be some kind of neoconservative.
The other thing that I can tell the member, despite the number of years that he tells us he spent flying around Europe, is that NATO is not a peacekeeping organization. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was created to wage war, to be the first line of defence against the former Soviet Union. It is the United Nations, and that is why the New Democratic Party of Canada is in favour of handing this mission over to the United Nations
That comment from Mulcair sent the Conservatives howling.
(Edit: Unionist, my misinterpretation is not deliberate. Let's just agree that there are no MPs who are especially pro-Palestine, let alone leadership candidates. I can see how you would still think the differences between the candidates are more than "slight".)
Mulcair's unequivocal stand on Afghanistan, among some other crucial issues of the time - especially when Jack was still parroting Dawn Black's creative rejection of the 2006 convention - was one of the key factors which won my support in the 2007 by election and in the elections since. Calling for Canada to end our own direct military intervention was, in my mind, far more immediate than our varying views on the Israel Palestine debacle. On that front, Mulcair was way out in front of the party, and deserved credit and support for that.
Nowhere in that link did Mulcair mention Palestine or Israel. He did talk about Haiti, Iraq, and the Congo.
And if you've been combing through Hansard surely you must be aware that the NDP was not the only party to condemn the government's withdrawal of funding for KAIROS. So the passage you linked to is quite irrelevant to the point you are attempting to make.
I'm not trying to make a point, so much as rebut the ludicrous point that Mulcair would be indistinguishable from Harper, even on just on this issue. I think there's fair criticism, and then there's unverified speculation, and as reasonable people we should know the difference.
Libby was silenced after Mulcair's attack on her in June 2010. However, she spoke for five minutes last night at the Canadian Boat to Gaza event in Vancouver, about her 2009 trip to the West Bank and Gaza with the delegation of Canadian MPs. The main speaker on the event was Ehab Lotayef, and Egyptian-Canadian from Montreal who was one of the passengers on the boat.
"Indistinguishable" may have been a tad hyperbolic. But that doesn't change the fact that Mulcair's position on Israel is on the right wing of the NDP.
He happily participated in 2010 in the Harper-sponsored conference of the so-called "Interparliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism", a thinly-disguised project to demonize critics of Israel.
This is what this thread should be about.
John Baird cut pro-Palestinian remarks from his UN address
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/john-baird-cut-pro-palestin...
Lest we forget:
Libby Davies forced to apologize
Stand up together for Libby Davies!
Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 2
Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 3
Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 4
Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 5
Thanks for that timely reminder, Spector! And I'm pleased to note I opened all those threads except the last. There can be no doubt that the immense backlash (no, not just from babble!) stopped Layton from doing any more to Davies than public humiliation. It was a proud moment for many justice-loving members and supporters of the party. But the net effect was a chill that still persists to this day.
Post 3, above quotes the CPJME media release. It mentions that, at a meeting in 2008, Mulcair said: "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances."
Does anyone know the context of the meeting? Who was he talking to? Was it reported in the media at the time? Has he denied saying this?
It was April 30, 2008, in an evening celebration at the Renaud-Bray bookstore on Ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges, organized by the Jewish Tribune to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel. Mulcair was one of many politicians present. Unfortunately, the only report I can find is in the French version of the Canadian Jewish News, and even that survives only in Google's cache.
Here is what he was quoted as saying:
Let me know if you need a translation.
It really needs to be said in context
In other words his wife is of Jewish descent and his in-laws were Holocaust survivors. Who would not say that they support Israel under such circumstances?
I wouldn't. My parents were Holocaust survivors. Nor would huge and growing numbers of progressive Jews. I'm trying to be calm and poised about this, and not suggest that your post associates the Jewish people with support for Israel, i.e. with aggression, discrimination, occupation, and war crimes. I don't want to show any hostility here. Just begging you to please think over what you said and understand how offensive it is.
I'm talking about a non-Jewish person who I assume loves his wife and her family. As a non-Jew myself I can readily understand how Mulcair would make a comment like that. Is it possible that you might be taking this out of context? In other words the topic was about his wife's family roots and not the Middle East conflict.
And not being Jewish, and for sure partly because of the Holocaust, I have always been somewhat reluctant to criticise Israel.
I believe it is largely up to the Israeli people to resolve their issues, just as it up to us Canadians to resolve ours.
Thanks for this Unionist. I googled and googled and couldn't find it. No translation needed. I found the CPJME release lacking in detail about what Mulcair said. It's a big decision we have in front of us and this information helps.
I started the campaign being very scared of a Mulcair leadership. He's had a great campaign which allayed many of my fears. However, this and his public transit announcement has started him on a downward trend on my list.
NorthReport, there's a huge difference between saying you support the existence of the State of Israel (regardless of your religeous background or your spouse's family history) and saying "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances." While I really don't think you intended offence, it's unfair to generalise the uncritical support of Israel to all Jews, Holocaust survivors and their families.
That's right, and it's disturbing how those Palestinians don't show the same reluctance to criticize Israel. They're not as sensitive to the suffering of others, I guess.
Sure, which is why Mulcair attends a celebration of 60 years of Israel chasing 3/4 million Palestinians out of their home and states for the public record that he is an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances. I guess he was speaking as an Israeli then, rather than as a Canadian?
This is game changing for me...with out a doubt
Some very good comments in all this ....Unionist ..Spector hell even Arty ...a few more too...well said !
Yes although he will probably win I wont vote for mulcaire
Hell I was even going to go grill him on tuesday as I got the invite yesterday
Oh well....sorry if a man cant stand for the common sense answer because he is already on the record as partisan and ignore what is the plain and obvious truth ... he isnt worth voting for
I rescind my vote and think it will be nathan cullen actually who would get my support actually
And based on astrology the candidate most along the lines of jack layton
mulcair is also a Libra moon I just discovered ..so sorry
Example?
Moon Sign for 24 October 1954Libra
Diplomatic, aesthetical, avoiding confrontation, understanding and attentive. Likes to spend time with the partner, hates situations that require to make a choice.
The Moon in Libra people have a desire to conciliate conflicting interests, to help even complete opposites to meet somewhere, to find a peaceful solution for a conflict situation. In short - they are inborn diplomates. Intuitively, they feel that everything in this world has two sides - a positive and a negative - and try to restore harmony where, as they think, there is no balance. If someone is praised onesidedly, the Moon in Libra will add something negative about that person. But if someone is criticized, the same Moon in Libra will add something positive to the mixture.
It is quite typical for the Moon in Libra individuals to hezitate endlessly in situations where some choice is required. The result of their decision doesn't become better from the amount of time spent in hezitations - they just pick something at random when there is no possibility to delay anymore.
Relationships can often be the most important part of life for the Moon in Libra people. Not only their emotional well-being, but even the state of their health might depend on how successfully they find mutual understanding with their partner. In order to restore their balance after a significant stress, they need to spend some time together with someone who is dear to them, to speak about their problem, to feel compassion and understanding. And if they don't have such an opportunity for a long time, if stress continues to build up, the Moon in Libra can become inconstant and erratic. They can develop a problem with kidneys and get lower back pain as a result. Another typical health problem for them is a migraine-like headache, which also often has its roots in kidneys.
The Moon in Libra gives aesthetical perception. These people know quite well what they like and what they don't, which colours and styles look right and which do not match. Parents with such a Moon are often worried about how to dress their children elegantly and fashionably so that nobody could say that there is something wrong in their family. The image of their family means a lot for the Moon in Libra individuals, and being good diplomates they try to always make a good impression and to hide any existing problems.
So I thank all of you for creating this thread as it and this issue are important to any fair minded freedom oriented person or should be