Stand up for Libby Davies - part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ottawaobserver wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like a blockade and occupation to be opposed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stockholm wrote:

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

Not really.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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

Like a blockade and occupation to be opposed?

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Gush Shalom: Barak's Generous Offer

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Unionist wrote:

Don't you have any sense of [b]politics[/b], where you unite with people even though they don't share your unparalleled understanding of the universe?

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

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

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