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.
Thomas Mulcair's support for Israel 2
February 21, 2012 - 9:15pm
Continued from here.
babblers might be interested in knowing that Thomas Mulcair's campaign has been reading rabble.ca's NDP Leadership roundups, which have been based on babble's discussion. The latest one is here.
It includes a paragraph on babble's ongoing discussion about Mulcair, Israel and foreign policy:
Quote:
Thomas Mulcair's avowed support for Israel continues to dominate the discussion as he emerges as a likely frontrunner as the membership deadline passes. Many pointed out that Mulcair does not appear to support Palestinian statehood and babbler Left Turn pointed to claims from Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East (CPJME) that he is out of line with NDP policy.
Mulcair's campaign director responded with an email which includes Mulcair's official position on the Middle East. I've quoted it here in its entirety. Apologies if it has already been posted somewhere!
Quote:
As Leader of the New Democratic Party, my approach to the Middle East
would be rooted in our party's long standing values and policies. As I
outlined in my recent policy announcement regarding foreign affairs, I am
committed to an approach to foreign policy that integrates trade, aid,
military, human rights, and climate change policies. Canada should offer
preferential trade and assistance to countries based on their commitment to
human rights, labour standards and environmental protection. As Prime
Minister I would also work to implement the recommendations of the National
Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility to ensure Canadian
corporations, especially in the mining and extracting industries, conform
to international standards.
Canada's role in the Middle East should be, first and foremost, that of an
honest broker representing our common values—supporting all those
committed to the pursuit of peace, justice, democracy and economic
development that benefits the average citizen, not only the elite.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a human tragedy that has continued for
far too long. I reject the one-sided approach taken by the current
government. Support for Israel and the Palestinians is not a zero-sum game.
Support for Israel’s existence must not come at the expense of
Palestinian national aspirations, and vice-versa. Both peoples have an
absolutely equal right to self-determination.
Towards a two-state solution:
The NDP has a longstanding policy of support for a negotiated two-state
solution which includes the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live
in peace in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon
borders. A State for Palestinians existing alongside a State for
Israelis—two states for two peoples—is the best guarantor for peace,
security, prosperity, democracy, and social justice for both Israelis and
Palestinians. An NDP government must work with both Israelis and
Palestinians to forge that comprehensive peace accord and mark a final end
to this conflict.
As we work toward the goal of a negotiated peace, I would follow the path
laid out by our party caucus: Canada should support efforts by the Obama
administration and other governments to negotiate language at the United
Nations that would recognize the right of both states to exist while
reaffirming the need for a negotiated settlement to the conflict rather
than simply walking away from the table as has been the case with the
current government. If we are to be an honest broker—if we reject the
current government's one sided approach—we must hold both sides in this
conflict to the same standard.
Borders:
Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been one of the chronic
impediments to peace and constitute a violation of the 4th Geneva
Convention. The consensus on how best to resolve this issue, as articulated
by U.S. President Barack Obama, is through mutually agreed upon land swaps
between Israel and the Palestinians in charting the definitive border
between the two states. Based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, Israel
must withdraw from territories occupied in 1967 in exchange for an end of
conflict and acknowledgement of its right to exist in peace and security
within recognized borders, free from threats or acts of force. An NDP
government must push both sides to abide by Resolution 242 and reach a
comprehensive peace agreement without delay.
Refugees:
Canada, as the gavel holder of the Refugee Working Group tasked with
finding a solution for Palestinian refugees, is well placed to take a
leadership role on the world stage in resolving this fundamental aspect of
the Israel-Palestinian conflict. With our history of peaceful dispute
resolution, Canada can have a major impact in helping the parties to
overcome this critical impasse, successfully ameliorating the situation of
the Palestinian refugees. Canada’s government must step up to the plate
and play a more active role in solving this pressing problem.
The debate here at home:
The debate about issues in the Middle East is intense and yet highly
sensitive to many of those involved. As leaders, we should encourage an
open and constructive debate. Canada can regain its reputation as a bridge
builder. 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.Thomas Mulcair
There is nothing in Mulcair's policy that I disagree with. In fact, its a bit of a "narcissism of small difference" to claim that there is really much space between any of the seven candidates on the Middle East.
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.
"I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances." - Mulcair, May 1, 2008 Canadian Jewish News
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?
Mulcair's statement says Palestinians can only have a state, and can only end the illegal occupation, if Israel agrees. That is, through "negotiations". Israel has its own state. It never negotiated it with anyone. Israel occupies territories illegally since 1967, through aggressive war, not negotiations. Mulcair doesn't accept international law, which says refugees have the right to return. In every single point, he cites Obama, who has promised to veto Palestine's bid for statehood should the question come before the Security Council.
Is this different from "NDP policy", whatever the hell that term may mean? Is it different from the position of other candidates? I don't really know. What I do know is that it constitutes ardent support for Israel in all situations and in all circumstances, and a denial of the most fundamental principles of international law and the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. But we already knew this, because all this rhetoric of Mulcair's was already on the public record. I and others quoted it in previous threads. Nothing, unfortunately, has changed.
And with cheerleaders among supposedly progressive NDP supporters, such as those on this discussion board, why should Mulcair or the others change their pro-Israel stand? Palestinians can't vote. Screw them. Right?
ETA: By the way, nicky already kindly posted Mulcair's policy in full, three days ago. We've been debating it in full since then. Mulcair's "new" message is the same line he has been peddling from the start - that permission for Palestinian rights must come from Israel - not their own struggle, not the United Nations.
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.
Harper, Rae and Mulcair: Looks like wall to wall Likudniks to me. ndp=no difference party. Let the NDP demonstrate its supposed support of Palestinian Human Rights by making a strong representation against the massive and ongoing abuses, when Benjamin Netanyahu visits Ottawa March 2..
Israeli PM to Meet with Harper in Ottawa
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120220/israel-canada-meeting-120220
The Palestinian people do not need Israel's recognition, nor Canada's, nor yours, to win their freedom. It's shameful that you and Mulcair have the same colonial and paternalistic view toward the Palestinian people. But one day, sooner or later, you will both be very disappointed. Because oppression has a way of being lifted. Look around.
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.
What's the path to Palestinean statehood without both Israel and Palestine agreeing on it?
Even ignoring that it wouldn't be the path to statehood that the NDP supports, is there any other realistic way that this could happen?
[see below - past the posts of someone who doesn't want to discuss the issue]
I'm sorry, but there is WAY, WAY too much of the Israeli public who is beyond 'winning over hearts and minds'. What Israel needs, just to be reasonable, is the rug pulled out from it by the US... and now its even more steadfast friend Canada [who would have thunk the Americans could have been outdone, eh?].
Israelis need the riot act read to them. Its not something in the 'national psyche'. Its common to settler states.
The hearts and minds we need to win, is Canadians.
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.
Excellent. Then you should have easier access than lay persons to the relevant United Nations resolutions, maps of pre-1967 Israel, and the pertinent tenets of international law.
Nonsense. Even Israel has never dared to formally annex the occupied territories. The whole world recognizes that the settlements are unlawful. To give Mulcair some credit for doing so - or to suggest that he is taking a stance critical of Israel - is something I won't qualify with an appropriate adjective.
That "we" should recognize? Are you serious? Get a map of pre-1967 Israel, have a look at the parts called Gaza and the West Bank and Golan, have a peek at the status of Jerusalem, and answer the question yourself.
As for which capital we should recognize? Why not first tell me what the capital of Israel is (cf Joe Clark's step into the cesspool in 1979)? When you've solved that conundrum, I'll share my thoughts about the capital of Palestine. Hint: Google Al-Quds - i.e., none of the above.
For 60 years, the people of Palestine have been exiled from their homes, confined to refugee camps, treated like subhumans on a daily basis, subjected to aggression and humiliation, and deprived of the elementary rights that every nation deserves to enjoy. Mulcair hasn't "stumbled" in trying to help them. He has ranged himself with their enemies. I won't speculate as to why (although his wife's family surviving the Holocaust doesn't cut it for me - his explanation). His direction, whether it's his "goal" or not, is neither justice nor peace. His diatribes about "I stand with Obama" must be rejected by anyone who genuinely cherishes those goals.
After Canada reads Israel the riot act, will the magic words summon a unicorn that banishes the Israelis from occupied territory?
No, but that's not really a good enough reason to support Obama's threatened veto of the Palestinian Authority's bid for statehood. Or to stand with Israel "in all situations and under all circumstances".
Your same argument could have been used to support South African apartheid, or let's say, to remain "neutral" - because Canada couldn't beat 'em single-handed. But of course, those who don't really feel any sense of urgency about 63 years of Palestinian dispossession would probably be shocked at a comparison with apartheid, so I apologize in advance if anyone suffered a fainting fit.
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")?
It's a legitimate question. I just heard someone lament that Palestine can only have a state if Israel agrees, basically lamenting that there has to be any kind of negotiations or diplomacy between the representatives of Israel and Palestine. I want to know: what's the alternative to a negotiation?
Calculate, in your mind, the probability that 100, or heck, 155 NDP MPs in Canada denounce the Israeli occupations, and then the Palestineans have their own state.
Maybe I'm not seeing what you see, but I see that as less likely than those same NDP candidates denouncing the British occupation of indigineous land, and then we have separate sovereign states for every tribe formerly occupied in Canada. At least the NDP has influence here.
Show me this other path to Palestinean statehood.
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.
How is it offensive?
We're both anti-imperialists. If there's another way to liberate Palestine, I want to know what it is. I want to sign up, and I want the NDP to switch policy.
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).
No, I don't think you do.
Allies don't look for ways to liberate anyone. You must be thinking of the U.S. and NATO and David Cameron and Harper. They're always on the lookout for someone to liberate. We simple folk just sit back humbly and support people who are fighting to liberate themselves, no matter how great the difficulties they face and the odds against them.
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.
You know, LP, it's obvious that he doesn't - because he says Palestinians must win their state in negotiations with Israel, and he protests that Obama's policy (which includes vetoing the PA's bid) is his policy.
I would actually like to broaden the discussion a little bit and ask whether any of the other candidates really supports it. I'm not doubting the CJPME's assessment, but which verifiable quotes have you seen, and from which candidates?