Iggy bans Lib MPs from Gaza rallies?

I simply cannot accept this pretense at benign observation and non involvement.The idea that we can do what we want over here and not say anything about a solution while our actions affect all the players and the viability of that solution is not only naive it is callous. We are not observers of a planet from behind the clouds with some prime directive ala Star Trek-- we have a free trade agreement with Israel, we have weapons trade and and intelligence sharing. The fact that our economic involvement alone in the region, never mind involvement in US led alliances means we are not some far-off observer.

The idea that expressing an opinion is such a problem- even as removed as that is is shocking. Did you criticize the government for taking a position on apartheid in South Africa as well?

We have more responsibility than to engage all around the world as we please affecting balances of economic power with every major trade deal and then pretend not to interfere beyond our borders. 

We are not speaking of a single group of people that we are lecturing as to how to run there lives-- if that were the case then you might have a point-- but we are talking of two separate nations who have long declared themselves as such -- it is comment about their attempts at interfering in each others right to exist that you are taking issue with. Do you realize how absurd that is?

I certainly support respecting self determination but when that self determination has been expressed and is being attacked by others whom we support (and this is true on both sides) then we have an obligation to express our opinion or pull up all stakes and get out of not only that region but all others who are involved there. In other words if we want to create a firewall around Canada and not trade with anyone including the US as well as Israel, then we can lay claim to the possibility of some aloof high ground where we have a moral right and obligation to non involvement and non comment. In the real world things are not quite so simple. And fundamentally a two state solution is nothing more or less than an acceptance of each other to exist-- this is not us coming in and commenting on borders, capitals, inter-state relations, form of government etc. This is us saying clearly both have expressed their existence as nations and that should be respected-- now please get to the table and get it done. This expression is the easy part but it is a big one-- the details, I agree are to come from bilateral negotiations that become possible when each recognizes the other's existence. Until that happens there is no working out for themselves anything and there is only the utilization of our participation by the parties as best they can to gain advantage.

I concur. 

I think we should clarify this thing about the two-state solution. "We" did not support the two state solution because "we" thought it was the best plan for the resolution of the conflict. We supported it because it was a tentative proposal based in negotiations between legitimate leadership of both sides, as outlined in international agreements under the Oslo accords.

What we thought of it was basically irrelevant. What was important was that it served for a while as a tentative basis for a negotiated peace, which was agreed to by the parties involved. 

I supported the Oslo process, even though I felt it was fundametally wrong on some very serious moral points, such as the fact that it made no concrete proposals (nor even an agreement in principle)  about compensating Arab refugees, or otherwise dealing the "right of return" for Palestinian families.

There were also numerous pragmatic flaws that were quite clearly outlined by Edward Said, in his lengthy critique, which he felt doomed the process to failure, points that were proven quite correct as the process unfolded. It may even be the case that the proposed two state solution and the Oslo process in its entirety has damaged the cause of peace overall, largely because of Arafat's precipitous decision to sign the agreement before major issues like a clear timetable for Israeli withdrawal was established, and agreements in principle were made regarding the "Right of Return of Palestinian refugees."

It is quite clear now, that Israel merely used the Oslo process as a way of furthering its expansion into the West Bank, and increasing settlement, so as to distort the "facts on the ground" so as to be better positioned to deal with the Palestinians when the so called "final status" talks took place.

Well, here we are now and that is water under the bridge. Oslo is dead. Lets move on.

Nonetheless, in terms of our position of being in "solidarity" with the Palestinian struggle, it is not our place to dictate the terms under which Palestinians extract themselves from the dire situation that they are in, as Unionist rightly points out, but to support whatever negotiated solutions that are being pursued by the legitimate leadership(s) of the Palestinian people.

Right now, our object must be to put preassure on Israel to end it heinous military assault and put preassure on Israel in order to stop it commiting genocidal acts, and to return to the negotiating table.

Well, actually no. The two state solution came from here. Previously it was called partition.

Oslo was the point at which the Palestinian leadership decided that it was impossible to oppose previous Israeli military conquest and the imposition of partition, and that continuing to pursue the idea of a single secular state of all the land and all its people was unfeasible and would only lead to more suffering.

Numerous Palestinians objected to Yasser Arafat's decision to agree to this, and the decision basicaly had to be rammed down the throats of the Palestinian National Assembly through some very undemocratic means. with the background support of the US and Israel. The hope was that a state could be created and people could get on with their lives.

In fact, Oslo was a surrender of the claims that the Palestinians had on the lands they had be evicted from.

So, morally the whole thing was questionable, right from the get go, and as many people pointed out there were serious issues left outstanding when the agreement was signed, and in the end these proved to difficult to surmount. For one thing the intitial agreement was tentative enough for Israel to exploit it, and in fact the 6 year Oslo period also saw Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and Arab areas of Jerusalem, increase:

Gush Shalom

This expansion fundamentally broke the spirit and indeed the letter of the agreement. For example more settlers meant increased water usage, and the accord specifically stated that there was to be no increase in water usage by the Israeli settlements.)

I strongly reccomend you read "The End of the Peace Process" by Edward Said, for a clear analysis of why Oslo, and the "Two State Solution", failed.

Lets be clear at least on this point. The two state solution is partition, as originally set forth by the UN in 1948, except that the Israeli part has swallowed up half of what was originally set out for the Arabs by the UN.

The Arabs were never consulted about partition in the begining, and it is wholey a western and Israeli idea. The latter day rendering of this as "the Two State Solution" is Arab compromise in the face of defeat.

The latest from Iggy's team: 

"Anti-Zionism" is almost always a P.R. flak's weasel term for "anti-Semitism"

People should write their Liberal MP and ask whether they share the view that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite.

 I truly wish Canada would, but we live in the real world, Unionist, and Canada is just not that principled.

Don't tell me it's Harper's fault either: Where are the rest of them?

Only one lone, now silenced, Tory MP has said the courageous thing.

Where is the "left"? Where is the opposition?

I was becoming concerned at the tenor of many of the comments in this thread and then this comment popped up. I am really not certain what to make of this position. Although I agree with some comments and not others, it appears that this discussion is becoming more paritsan and moving towards one side being the victim and the other fully at fault. This is a zero sum game in my opinion. There can be no peace without negotiation. I am not an expert in Middle Eastern affairs, but it seems to me that there needs to be a step back from the brink by both sides. Neither is innocent here.

Also, I don't log on here to hear everyone agree with me or to be one of the group nodding their heads in agreement. That would be a waste of my time.