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
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.
Actually, SDM, I don't really care what you think about the Middle East. The specific issue in this thread is where Mulcair stands - and I'm trying to compare that with the stand of the other candidates, to be fair.
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.
UN Special Rapporteur Condemns Israel for De-Facto Annexation
http://www.icahd.org/?p=8177
"..Concluding a ten day visit to the region yesterday (Mon, Feb 20), UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Prof Richard Falk stated that 'the information I received paints a picture of increasing efforts by Israel to deny Palestinians their right of self-determination.
Ever increasing and expanding Israeli settlements; ever-increasing confiscation of Palestinian land; ever-increasing settler violence; and ever-increasing demolition of Palestinian homes and other measures to displace Palestinians, have the manifest effect of making self-determination a decreasingly realizable prospect for Palestinians.
The information inevitably leads to the conclusion that Israel is implementing a deliberate policy of forcing Palestinians out of their homes and off the land, in order to establish more illegal settlements, and to proceed with the de-facto annexation of the West Bank, if not altogether, at least in relation to its substantial part, is a process aggravated by a disproportionate allocation of water to the settlers. In this regard, the situation in certain parts of E Jerusalem and throughout the Jordan Valley and the West Bank, merit sustained and timely international attention and advocacy..."
Should the NDP as official opposition not be following the UN Rapporteur's guidance for 'sustained and timely international attention and advocacy? R2P the Palestinians? Will the Official Opposition raise these matters with Netanyahu or will they continue to support genocide?
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.)
That's a fair comment, Unionist.
To that point, I'd only say *all* the NDP candidates believe that Canada's role should be that of a mediator. Which, for better or for worse, means that both sides have to agree. Yes, all candidates believe that Israel will have to agree to a Palestinean state.
There might be a stronger contrast between the candidates on the issue of the UN bid.
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.
What I find disappointing is that some of Mulcair's supporters here view his statement that he supports Obama on Israel/Palestine as evidence that he is "critical" of Israel.
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.
Unlike Unionist, I'll concede a lot to political realities. So we do have to call for mediation.
But its dangerous to delude ourselves over what has to be done.
Most people just would not understand if we said that there is nothing to mediate. But we have to do more that that. And most Dippers see mediation as an end in itself. And there are others who see only having to call for mediation as a convenient cover.
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.
Thanks, LP - very interesting. Some sound very clear (Ashton in particular - she said "absolutely" in reply to the question - Cullen similar - Nash said "yes", but when she went on to speak, it became less clear that she meant "yes" to the current bid for statehood) - but in other cases, to a greater or lesser extent, the answers are like, "well, if we really believe in a two-state solution, then both states have to be recognized by the U.N.". Topp's reply was the least clear of all (other than Singh maybe). The question was simple - "Would you vote in favour of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations?" It really called for a "yes" or a "no". In most of the cases, I had the feeling that the answer was, "Yes - at some point or another".
Having said that, it is clear, and has been for years, that Mulcair is far more extreme in his pro-Israel stand than any of the others.
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.]
@ SDM post#41 [things go ny fast]
Agree to a degree.
But withdrawing one sided support of Israel is in context not pressuring.... its a necessary start on bringing in more balance.
And we have to realize that Israel will treat mediation as the same empty shell they can do anything with they want- like all the 'peace negotians' unless the support is truly under threat, which has never happened.
I realize that no candidate speaks like this. I frankly do not think it feasible. But going back to Mulcair, I think he goes beyond that. I cannot see that any of the other candidates would ever have said support Israel under all circumstances. Unionist seems to be saying that little or no difference in explicit positions taken means little real difference. But I think thats a pretty material difference.
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.
The impression I get is that the folks who are saying that they don't want to talk about this issue anymore are really saying "I don't want anyone on babble to talk about this issue".
Mulcair happens to have a public record on this issue and a record that includes dumping on a fellow member of the NDP caucus. So some of us are going to talk about it and the Mulcair supporters are just going to have to learn to live with it.
The NDP position on Israel/Palestine, such as it is, is basically alot of mush. What I'm interested in are candidates who are at least open to moving this debate beyond the current mush and towards something that might vaguely look like solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.
I was sorry that Romeo Saganash dropped out of the race. He was the first candidate to put out a detailed position on peace in the Middle East, one that moves in this direction.
So Mulcair wants us all to "shut up" about this issue and so apparently do his supporters on babble. Couple that with his Blairite neo-liberal economic views and there is no way I'd ever support him.
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.
"It's hard to find a country friendlier to Israel than Canada these days. Members, both of the coalition and the opposition are loyal friends to us, both with regard to their worldview and their estimation of the situation in everything relating to the Middle East. I got the impression of great support for Israel. Canada is so friendly that there was no need to convince or explain anything to anyone..."
Avigdor Liberman, CJN, July, 2009
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.
So here we have a Mulcair supporter trumpeting how detailed Mulcair's statement is. Yet the statement does not answer that simple question--Does Mulcair support the Palestinian bid for UN statehood.
So the answer is no. No he doesn't. When someone releases a policy paper that is "far more detailed" but includes a glaring omission, well that's deliberate.
If Mulcair supported the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN, he would say so. Clearly he doesn't. And if he's been reading discussions here and doesn't realize that's the question we want him to answer, well I don't know what to say.
I am not sure if you just don't get it or what. We are not talking about Canada recognizing them, we are talking about the UN recognizing them. And Mulcair opposes it.
Mulcair opposes the UN recognition of Palestinian statehood.
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
So how come nobody has asked him the question directly and reported on the answer?
Clearly, going off on diatribes is far more fulfilling.
The NDP supported statehood for Kosovo almost exactly four years ago, without any negotiations - just a unilateral declaration of independence. Layton even said the NDP would recognize Quebec independence following a referendum. The NDP supported the Harper government's recognition of the Transitional National Council as the sole legitimate government of Libya, even while the civil war was still going on.
But somehow when it comes to Palestine one can't be too hasty - even though 112 countries have formally recognized Palestine's statehood. Suddenly there have to be guarantees given and borders recognized and bargaining away of historical rights - and above all the permission of the Israeli government - before there can be any question of recognizing a Palestinian state.
And this, apparently, is what passes as an "even-handed" approach to the Palestinian question.
- Rabble.ca
I find it all too normal and intimate. Supporters of the Afrika Korp's most recent foray in Libya are being asked to display their anti-imperialist credentials in the context of Israel and Palestine. To describe a situation as being peculiar would imply there's something out of the ordinary to consider, when what we're actually witnessing is something disgustingly familiar. Being 'practical' as someone put it in this thread is the same thing as validating 'facts on the ground' that worsen with each passing day. The various statements on the matter speak for themselves with silence. It's like watching choppy black and white movies before they figured out how to introduce sound. Lots of arm waving and lips flapping, but nobody's really saying anything.
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.
It was always going to be a long time in between a high volume discussion here, and the question landing in front of Mulcair.
And the person who does it better keep the question very simple and direct.
Such as, "Do you think the NDP should support the UN resolution on recognizing Palestine?"
Which is a question a number of other candidates have already answered of their own initiative.
There are a number of Mulcair supporters who have participated in or observed this running discussion. And some of them have recently been at or will recently be at events where Mulcair is answering questions. What do suppose the odds are that one of them has or will ask him the simple question, and report here? Be very easy to do. And it seems to be important enough to come here and defend Mulcair.
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.
I knew this thread would become a particular challenge for me and my relations with the NDP. Which is, the NDP is a compromise for me, something which I've struggled against during my support for Saganash, and is now glaringly obvious to me for most, if not all, of the remaining candidates for leader.
The truth I can no longer evade is that the federal NDP will not take any progressive, active, counter-Conservative measures in support of the Palestinian bid for statehood. Not under Mulcair, and, it seems, not under any of the other candidates.
I'm still going to vote on March 24th, there's one or two I will vote for, but my heart isn't in it.
In all the months of the leadership frenzy I've deliberately tried to obfuscate my policy and political issues with the NDP, and have been successful, up until now.
Thanks a lot, babblers.