Iggy bans Lib MPs from Gaza rallies?

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
aka Mycroft

The point is you're making an assumption about what he means and you're also doing it without the full context of what the "videographer" said leading up to that.

The video is a propaganda film that's been highly edited to highlight two incidents involving two individuals out of a crowd of 10,000, and one of those incidents is highly open to interpretation. You are assuming that what the guy means is Hitler didn't do a good job of killing all the Jews but you're adding in the "killing all the Jews" part which just happens to be the key part of your presumed sentence. He could have just as easily meant "Hitler didn't do a good job for Germany" but without the initial question we have no way of putting the answer in context which makes me wonder why the interviewer EDITED HIS INITIAL QUESTION OUT of the video? For all we know the conversation could have gone like this:

Q: Do you think Hitler did a good job?

A: Hitler didn't do a good job. 

All we have is the "interviewer" trying hard to badger the guy into saying something he could use against him (because obviously "Hitler didn't do a good job" wasn't enough) and the guy shoving the camera once he realised what the anonymous JDL interviewer was trying to do.

As for you latest link, that wasn't from the Toronto rally.

aka Mycroft

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Quote:
 

Star I've talked to JDL people in the past and they say things about Arabs and Palestinians that make the claims in that video look like kindergarten. Would you make a generalization about all Jews based on what a few members of the JDL terrorist group say?

No, but I sure as hell wouldn't attend events of theirs, welcome them to anything I was involved with and if i ever did encounter them yelling their vitriol and hate, I'd be the first person to ask them to stop and explain that they were discrediting everyone else present.

And yet you accept the editing hatchet job by a JDL video maker without question.

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:
Has SSC apologized yet for - or simply corrected - his fabrication whereby he added the word "enough" to the hatemongering interviewer's question? If not, AKA M, I would question why you're continuing to patiently explain things to him, as if he's just some misguided well-intentioned soul who doesn't have all the facts about some rally? His consistent screed here is an attempt to connect anti-Israel activism with anti-Semitism. That kind of hatemongering doesn't fall within the category of innocent ignorance.

I DO apologize for getting teh quote wrong. I don't think it sufficeintly changed the meaning to really matter but to teh extent that I wasn't careful enough in capturing it fully, that was my error.

I'm not "trying to connect anti-Israel activism with anti-Semitism." YOU, however, seem very intent on trying to sever them from one another. The truth is likely somewhere between your appraoch and the one that you falsely attribute to me. Of course not everyone (let alone msot) of the people attending anti-Israeli rallies are anti-Semitic. Of course not all (let alone most) criticism of israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. But there IS enough of that is and there are enough legitimate anti-Semites that it risks poisoning the entire movement.

I'm not in favourt of israel's actions. I sympathize with teh people in gaza. I'm also a Jew, the grandson of a two Holocaust survivors, an academic and someone with family currently living in Israel. So everytime I see people at rallies calling Jews "products of pigs", or hear diciulous Nazi analogies, or hear about Israeli athletes being pelted with bottles by an angry mob or about synogogues in europe being burned, or when people defend firing rockets at israeli daycares as "resistance" or when unions attack academic freedom by applying ridiculous double standards and singling out ONE country in a world sadly filled to the brim with human rights abusers, yes, I sometimes DO feel forced to question the motivations of many of the people attacking Israel and feel less inclined to be a part of any movement that attracts such lunacy and hatred.

Unionist

I rest my case, aka M.

Natasha81

As a constituent of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I called Iggy's office this morning to demand what his position is, not as leader of the Liberal party but as MP of this district. Got answering machine, left a message with telephone # and email. I will let you guys know if anyone gets back to me.

 

On the issue of protests, I have been to the two that have been organized here so far. I did hear one young guy say "f**k the Jews" but this was after he was provoked by some JDL punk screaming "terrorists" at us. Almost all of the protesters were screaming "free palestine, occupation is a crime" and so on. As a Muslim, I know JDL hates me for who I am but I hate them for what they think about me. Bigotry in all of its forms is nasty and should never be tolerated.

Sean in Ottawa

I'll comment on the opening point: I don't think Ignatief can politically do anything presently regardless of whatever he might otherwise be inclined or not to do.

Remember Rae left the NDP of policy respecting Palestine and Israel. Ignatief simply cannot afford an internal war with Rae on a position Rae feels strongly enough to change parties over. The Liberals are in the need of unity. In the grand scheme of things the Liberals are trying to take back power and this is not going to do anythign but cause them harm.

Everyone who gets into this debate gets pummelled anyway. Each side presents the situation as more simple than it is and in many respects both sides are incredibly weak in their positions leaving tons of ammunition for their opposition.

I am very upset for the people of Gaza who are being screwed over by practically everyone but that unfortunately includes their own leadership.  It does not negate any argument about the Israeli actions to say that the rocketfire is counter-productive and part of why they are unable to build enough global support in the right places to get a long term solution on reasonable grounds. Without the rocketfire their position could be fought for internationally and in countries like ours. Disapproval of Israeli action is not nearly as much of a problem even when it occurs because the Israelis have the strength in the area. It is the Palestinians who need world support and intervention and they will never get it until they have cleaner hands no matter how brutal, unreasonable and aggressive Israel is. As well, political opposition in Israel for this aggression can never gain any significant support as long as those rockets fire. This is not about right and wrong- it is about political realities and the Israeli government, as inept as it can be at times, clearly has a huge advantage over the Palestinians as well. They can survive the world being confused and conflicted and they can survive disapproval as long as it does not go much beyond that and as long as they are attacked it won't. The Palestinians unfortunately are not surviving period. They are being cut down and killed when they are not being starved. Hamas is using the rockets to ensure its own survival as it depends entirely on the conflict. It knows that as long as the rocketsprovide Israel cover for brutality, nothing will change and perversely they will retain the support of their people that they do not deserve. Unfortunately the parallel runs in reverse. The actions of Israel are also preventing the Palestinians from taking any other course and the two are locked into a struggle where one side, the Palestinians are paying disporportionately and inhumanely.

I am sure there will be people who will take issue with what I have said but I can say that the longest lasting conflicts are the ones with both sides being at fault. When one side is reasonable the other eventually will be pressured to moderate.

But I am not a political figure, I am not a person who must keep a party together and balance other issues that may be more important (if Ignatief wanted to do anythign for the Palestinians he has to do it from government not opposition so going out on a limb now if it costs in any way the chance to unify the party is counterproductive) .

Sean in Ottawa

We should also be pressing the PM publicly to back up a two state solution with assistance to Palestine where possible and that includes public statements that Israel may have the right to defend itself but this is not defence this is murder.

Unlike Ignatief who is in a difficult position with little ability to achieve anything by his statementsthe PM is in no such position and needs to be clear about where defence turns into aggression.

Star Spangled C...

No anti-Semitism HERE either.

I'm sure the woman who yelled at the Jews to "Go back to the oven" was merely telling them that on such a chilly day, they'd be happier at home cooking up a hot meal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477450,00.html

"But as the protest continued and crowds grew, one woman in a hijab began to shout curses and slurs that shocked Jewish activists in the city, which has a sizable Jewish population.

"Go back to the oven," she shouted, calling for the counter-protesters to die in the manner that the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during the Holocaust.

"You need a big oven, that's what you need," she yelled.

Millions of Jews were gassed and burned in crematoria throughout Europe during Adolf Hitler's rule of Germany. The protest organizers, asked to comment on the woman's overt call for Jewish extermination, said she was "insensitive" but refused to condemn her statement.

Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists."

remind remind's picture

Yes, words, are very  much more important than actions. I can see the confusion, whereby, people's words should cause and indeed justify further bombings and mass destruction of children's lives and aparthied actions against ALL Palestinians!

For fuck's sake SCC, you think this yelling in a state of outrage and horror means shit?

Heads up, it doesn't.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

ACK. SSC! Fix your post # 54 and get rid of this horrible sidescroll! In the new babble, everything is better, especially the sidescroll!

Star Spangled C...

remind wrote:

For fuck's sake SCC, you think this yelling in a state of outrage and horror means shit?

Heads up, it doesn't.

Glorifying the murder of 6 million people and calling for genocide now "means nothing"?

Star Spangled C...

 

I don't know that teh JDL made the video but if they did, so what? Are you suggesting that it was doctored? Are you suggesting the events depicted did not actually occur? Was the person yelling that Jews were "the products of pigs" an actor hired to portray an anti-Semite? When the person violently attacked the cameraman, was that staged somehow?

Star Spangled C...

Catchfire wrote:
ACK. SSC! Fix your post # 54 and get rid of this horrible sidescroll! In the new babble, everything is better, especially the sidescroll!

Done!

remind remind's picture

Stop putting words in my mouth! And indeed in the Muslim woman's mouth!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Star Spangled C...

remind wrote:

Stop putting words in my mouth! And indeed in the Muslim woman's mouth!

What words am I putting in the Muslim woman's mouth? She screamed "Go back to the oven." I said she was advocating genocide. Can you give me a PLAUSIBLE (let alone PROBABLE) rationale for her words that do not amount to the plainly evident fact taht she is an anti-Semite who advocated genocide?

Cueball Cueball's picture

If your idea is that one should not participate in social functions where there is overt racism mad by some persons, then you had better high tail it to the mountains, shave your head and find a mantra that you like, because everywhere you go there are persons who think, feel and indeed say racist things. This happens at weddings, dinner parties, sporting events, demonstrations etc. etc.

Your position is to say that one should not attend Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey games (a team which curiously has never had a person of colour on it, interestingly enough) because some of the fans say nasty things about Jarome Iginla when he shows up to play.

Does the blathering of one or two rednecks mean that Maple Leaf Hockey games are intended to spread Anti-African-American racism?

You have been told repeatedly that the expressions that you are seeing are by and large the exception at these kind of events, and frankly that has been my experience of them as well.

Our position, is that we can not abandon the social terrain to the ignorant, and that it is our duty to be present and join with those non-racist persons from all societies and cultures, in all circumstances, in order undermine racist ignorance and jointly educate and inform and drown out those negative voices. So far there has been great work done in the movement against Israeli Apartheid that has unified many like minded people opposed to racism and prejudice, joining together non-racist Jews, Muslims, Palestinian and Israelis.

Your position is not really a position. It is pedantry based on selectively choosing evidence that justifies your lack social responsibility.

oldgoat

Star Spangled Canadian, you are taking extreemist examples of, in questionable context, and using them to discredit anti Israeli demonstrations as a whole, then state you're not, then do it some more, then making sure you periodically post a pious disclaimer about how you oppose the actions of the Israeli gov't, which frankly I'm coming to doubt. 

This is trolling of a particularly passive aggressive nature, and it's disruptive to the thread.  Cut it out, or you'll be gone.

 

This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.

Cueball Cueball's picture

No the discussion would focus on the massacre that is going in the Gaza Strip, not the petulant outburst of one or two prejudiced persons at demonstrations in the west. This is ridiculous sidetracking, and smearing of the only movement that is seriously making efforts to bring together Arabs, Israelis, Jews and Muslims under a common banner.

It is to say, all discussion, needs to have a counterpoint to be productive, no matter how trivial the objection, just because. 

contrarianna

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

No anti-Semitism HERE either.

I'm sure the woman who yelled at the Jews to "Go back to the oven" was merely telling them that on such a chilly day, they'd be happier at home cooking up a hot meal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477450,00.html

"But as the protest continued and crowds grew, one woman in a hijab began to shout curses and slurs that shocked Jewish activists in the city, which has a sizable Jewish population.

"Go back to the oven," she shouted, calling for the counter-protesters to die in the manner that the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during the Holocaust.

"You need a big oven, that's what you need," she yelled.

Millions of Jews were gassed and burned in crematoria throughout Europe during Adolf Hitler's rule of Germany. The protest organizers, asked to comment on the woman's overt call for Jewish extermination, said she was "insensitive" but refused to condemn her statement.

Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists."

There is raging hatred on both sides and matched by plenty of vile murderous words on both sides. 
But your attempt to make the ongoing ethnic slaughter by Israel about another genocidal slaughter more than half a century ago is Standing Operating Procedure for those wishing to hide the ongoing ethnic clensing by the 4rth most powerful military in the world against an occupied and subjegated people.

The ugly reality of antisemitism does not make the words by Lopez untrue.
Yet Fox's dishonest handling of the story, of course, reinforces the standard: "criticim of Israel's actions"="antisemitism" meme.
Fox uses the word "But" to deny Lopez's words by equating his statements as the same as the woman's before him and by implying that he is calling the counterprotestors "terrorists" --a word not in quotes in the story so he obviouly didn't use it in that context (if at all).  The words in quotes "barbaric, racist" are clearly extracted from his comment on Zionsm, not on the protestors themselves:

"Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists.

"Zionism in general is a barbaric, racist movement that really is the cause of the situation in the entire Middle East," Lopez said."

-----
But if unpleasant words mean more to you than the actual slaughter, you might give more credence to those spoken in calm calculation rather than in an enraged standoff of protestors. Glenn Grenwald has some wise comments on that  subject:

"Published on Sunday, January 4, 2009 by Salon.com
Orwell, Blinding Tribalism, Selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza

by Glenn Greenwald
....
There are few concepts more elastic and subject to exploitation than "Terrorism," the all-purpose justifying and fear-mongering term.  But if it means anything, it means exactly the mindset which Goldfarb is expressing:  slaughtering innocent civilians in order to "send a message," to "deter" political actors by making them fear that continuing on the same course will result in the deaths of civilians and -- best of all, from the Terrorist's perspective -- even their own children and other family members.

To the Terrorist, by definition, that innocent civilians and even children are killed isn't a regrettable cost of taking military action.  It's not a cost at all.  It's a benefit.   It has strategic value.  Goldfarb explicitly says this:  "to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause."

That, of course, is the very same logic that leads Hamas to send suicide bombers to slaughter Israeli teenagers in pizza parlors and on buses and to shoot rockets into their homes.  It's the logic that leads Al Qaeda to fly civilian-filled airplanes into civilian-filled office buildings.  And it's the logic that leads infinitely weak and deranged people like Goldfarb and Peretz to find value in the killing of innocent Palestinians, including -- one might say, at least in Goldfarb's case:  especially -- children....."

 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/04

Joel_Goldenberg

Cueball wrote:

No the discussion would focus on the massacre that is going in the Gaza Strip, not the petulant outburst of one or two prejudiced persons at demonstrations in the west. This is ridiculous sidetracking, and smearing of the only movement that is seriously making efforts to bring together Arabs, Israelis, Jews and Muslims under a common banner.

It is to say, all discussion, needs to have a counterpoint to be productive, no matter how trivial the objection, just because.

 

The bigger problem for activists of any cause is that outbursts such as the Florida protest "oven" comment, especially if it gets on camera as this one did, is the one that gets on the news and YouTube, as it is now. For the silent majority out there, it contributes to the discrediting of the cause. The same goes for a conservative rally, where one or two yahoos may say something racist.

I also seem to recall an earlier Babble post in which a YouTube link was posted containing an Israeli soldier calling Palestinians "animals", and the poster said "Israelis", to mean in general, were calling Palestinians animals. Was that not an unjustified generalization? Was SSC making a generalization about the Toronto or Florida protests?

oldgoat

I would hold a soldier in uniform on duty (or off for that matter) to a higher standard than a random person at a protest, but the problem is that focussing on such incidents can be used as a red herring to undermine legitimate discussion.  That's why I'm intervening here.

 

This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.

Caissa

That wasn't an intervention it was a threat. Sort of like stop shooting rockets at us or we'll invade.Wink

madmax

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

What words am I putting in the Muslim woman's mouth? She screamed "Go back to the oven." I said she was advocating genocide.

The medias job is to go to an event and find a story people will read. THis requires finding someone in the minority saying something assinine.

Doesn't matter what the subject. There is a fool in every crowd, every demonstration, just like their is a fool in every political party that says something completely stupid. It is the main reason that many CPC MPs are muzzled, especially during the election. The media will jump on the stupid statements.

Remember Steven Harper calling the Prime Minister a supporter of child pornography....

Absolutely stupid and in the heat of an election campaign. What makes something like this more spectacular is that Mr Harpers intent was to lead the country and because of his foolish actions he failed, and hid in his trailer.  It is a lesson he learned, that in the last week, before you screw up, go hide in the trailer. It worked better the 2nd time.

This women.... who if reported accurately and no one seems to dispute the accuracy of the report, made a horrific statement.  I would never condone someone who talks about the actions of NAZI Germany as a solution to the palestinian crises. "Go back to the Ovens" is a sickening disgraceful statement and someone should have put her in her place for saying something so unacceptable.  Statements like that feed the fire.

Indeed their is a sick fool in every crowd, and this time it happened to be a woman.

Her statements are a solution to nothing.

 

Caissa

I disagree, Oldgoat. I don't believe SSC is trolling and your threat for him to be gone is heavy-handed. Without SSC in this discussion, this "debate" would be a monologue.

 

I suppose I need to state for the record, that I oppose the Israeli invasion of the Gaza. It's the new creed.

SCC

I am SCC. You people are refering to Star Spangled.

I never made any of those statements attributed to me.

Someone else made those statements about those demos.

This to me illustrates part of the problem in discussions about the Middle East. People do not read, then in a fit of irrational peak attribute things to people who did not say them.

Even the moderator, for effing sake, said SCC (i.e me) said this or that.

I haven't even made a a single post in this thread until this one here. 

Sheesh.

These debates remind me of the spoof movie Spinal Tap - you know the scene where one of the band members shows the filmmaker the speakers whose volume control does not go 0-to-10 but is cranked up to "11" (like extra extra extra loud).

The Middle East debate is dominated by people permanently at level 11. And this means 95% of everyone I know will not touch this one with a 10-foot pole. And now, after having seen how truly dumb this can fall, I won't touch it with an 11-foot pole.

Thank you.

 

Caissa

I believe "SCC" should have read "SSC" ie. Star Spangled Canadian. I apologize for repeating the acroym mistake.

Joel_Goldenberg

[

This women.... who if reported accurately and no one seems to dispute the accuracy of the report

 

 

It's on youtube, just type "Israel "protest" "ovens" or "Muslim hatred of Jews" in the search area. (I'm not good at posting the HTMLs). The protester also suggests that the counter-proteters "steal someone else's land." 

oldgoat

Oh Crap!  I meant to say SSC.  My sincerest apologies.  I'll go right back and fix it, using his real name.

Golly, I generally only make about one mistake a year, and I've used it up already.

SCC, to avoid further confusion, I'm getting into your account and changing your name to Larry. 

 

 

 

This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.

Sunday Hat

oldgoat wrote:

Star Spangled Canadian, you are taking extreemist examples of, in questionable context, and using them to discredit anti Israeli demonstrations as a whole, then state you're not, then do it some more, then making sure you periodically post a pious disclaimer about how you oppose the actions of the Israeli gov't, which frankly I'm coming to doubt. 

This is trolling of a particularly passive aggressive nature, and it's disruptive to the thread.  Cut it out, or you'll be gone.

I'm not sure I'd count it as trolling in a thread about the politics of all of this.

 The fact is, in a context where the coroporate-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to your message the lack of discipline at Palestinian Solidarity rallies is important.

I think we have to have zero tolerance for expressions of hatred or racism at our events or we will end up being marginalized. Some jackass who writes "Kill All Juice" on a sign should be told to leave the rally. Period.

The whole goal of US strategy is to marginalize the Arab world. To turn them into an inhuman other that average Americans won't care about and, frankly, I don't think we should be tolerant of one or two jackasses (claiming to be allies) tries to make that job easier for our enemies.

 All this noted, it's a bit of a non-sequitir in a Canadian politics thread since nothing like that has happened at any Canadian rally.

Sephardi

I was very careful with what I said when I posted the Youtube video of the Israeli soldier calling Palestinians animals. I said "Israelis" not "the Israelis." If more than one Israeli is guilty of believing Palestinians are animals then what I said is not a "generalization."

Hmm . . . can I find one more reference to an Israeli calling Palestinians animals?

Oh, here's one: "[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs." Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,'" New Statesmen, June 25, 1982. 

Sunday Hat
Cueball Cueball's picture

Sephardi wrote:

Oh, here's one: "[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs." Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,'" New Statesmen, June 25, 1982.

Not sure that this quote is for real. There have been some false ones floated on the internet. Can you find a link to the original article, or a good annotated reference to it.

But yeah, there are plenty of those. Sharon's minister of tourism (this is not a jok, btw) compared Palestinians to lice, and called them a cancer:

Quote:
"Parliament is not a manners school," Ze'evi said amid attempts to curb insults heard in the Knesset. The forthright politician sparked controversy in July for referring to Palestinians working and living illegally in Israel as "lice" and a "cancer."

CNN

This is not just some private citizen going off the rails, but a representative of the Israeli state.

saga saga's picture

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

No anti-Semitism HERE either.

I'm sure the woman who yelled at the Jews to "Go back to the oven" was merely telling them that on such a chilly day, they'd be happier at home cooking up a hot meal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477450,00.html

"But as the protest continued and crowds grew, one woman in a hijab began to shout curses and slurs that shocked Jewish activists in the city, which has a sizable Jewish population.

"Go back to the oven," she shouted, calling for the counter-protesters to die in the manner that the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during the Holocaust.

"You need a big oven, that's what you need," she yelled.

Millions of Jews were gassed and burned in crematoria throughout Europe during Adolf Hitler's rule of Germany. The protest organizers, asked to comment on the woman's overt call for Jewish extermination, said she was "insensitive" but refused to condemn her statement.

Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists."

"She does not represent the
opinions of the vast majority of people who were there,"
said Emmanuel
Lopez, who helped plan the event, one of many sponsored nationwide on
Dec. 30 by the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism ) Coalition.

 

Funny how you left out this statement from your link. It's right between the two you quoted without properly identifying that something was left out.

I conclude you are part of the Israeli propaganda machine, currently invading the net, no doubt funded by the US.

madmax
Joel_Goldenberg

Sephardi wrote:

I was very careful with what I said when I posted the Youtube video of the Israeli soldier calling Palestinians animals. I said "Israelis" not "the Israelis." If more than one Israeli is guilty of believing Palestinians are animals then what I said is not a "generalization."

 

So let's say I walk throughout Montreal and find two people who say Palestinians are animals. Would it be correct for me to write "Montrealers call Palestinians animals"?

Sean in Ottawa

I am very sympathetic to Israel. I feel sorry for this country that needs to understand that its security will only come through peace and a viable Palestinian state and not through military attacks. Every time the infrastructure gets damaged in Gaza (what is left of it) and the people there are led to more and more desperation, peace for Israel moves further away. I understand the idea that a state has a right to defend itself but Israel also has an obligation to its own self interest and it is feeding extremism by its behaviour and sacrificing its future security by tactics that do nothing other than radicalize the people there. The planned destruction of homes and group punishment is a unifying force for extremists.
When rockets are being fired at your citizens it takes a lot to chart a path away from violence but this is a risky and necessary approach. Only through the relief of the horror of what is happening in Gaza can anything else come about.

This is a place that could benefit from a UN force. Israel should not be going after the rocket sites-- others with a better humanitarian record and a more peaceful objective need to take that on. The border should be opened and a UN force inserted. That force should take out Hamas if it is unwilling to give up on the attacks but then it should protect the people and build a state. Israel should be kept out as any action it takes will only make things worse. A UN force will need to be there for a generation because the hatred and radicalization of the people there will not go away over night but security and infrastructure must be provided and territorial integrity given to this nation.

 

Hoodeet

I continue to be appalled at the crazy extremist statements on both sides. Yes, the JDL is a fascistic organization that has spawned (or sheltered) assassins. Yes, "Jewish" is often conflated with "Israeli" and "Zionist". This is troubling not only because Israel is in fact a Jewish settler state that grants automatic citizenship to virtually any Jew (even one fleeing from criminal charges in another country), but also because bred-in-the-bone anti-semites (those who were raised by parents and priests and in cultures where antisemitism has been common currency)  are free to utter their anti-Jewish crap without caring a hoot about such fine details as distinguishing between Jews and Zionists or Israelis.  So both right-wing, expansionist Zionists and good old-fashioned Jew-haters feed from the same trough of hatred and from the same ideological casuistry (Jewish must equal Israeli or Zionist).

If someone like ultra-progressive leftist James Petras, the Latin Americanist who also loves to hate Israel, can be so cavalier with his anti-Jewish statements and not be challenged, no Jew, however disgusted with Israeli policy and however non-practising, can be anything but disquieted.

Lord Palmerston

Cueball wrote:

I think actually the "support for Israel right or wrong" line plays better with non-Jews than it does with Jews. Jews have become a kind of cause celebre for non-Jews who want to give themselves tollerance street cred.

Harpo and Iggy can paint themselves as true defenders of civil liberties by sticking by Israel. All of which is supported by the general feeling of sympathy because of what happened in the last war (note I am saying "the last") and our grandiose conceptions of ourselves as defenders of the weak, and our role in liberating Western Europe from tyrrany.

Defending Israel (and therefore Jews) is the ideologically sanctioned way that one can express ones "good intentions", and is unassailable as such because of the unique circumstances in which our cultural concept of Jewishness comes into the context of the present day.

Jews, on the whole, (Zionist and otherwise,) are far less enamoured of all of that because most are fully cognizant of the reality, which is that European Christians basically abandoned them when not directly persecuting them, knowing full well that the Allies fought WWII because it was forced on them, not because they wanted to save anyone from concentration camps.

But yes, defending Israel is like a tollerance "get out of jail free" card for the gentile right, and that patriotic sentiment and sense of moral righteousness is precisely the market they are playing into among non-Jews, not the "Jewish vote", because for most white Christian anglos Israel and Jews are synonymous.

Your're right the defencing Israel is a get out of jail free card from people like Stephen Harper.  And the Christian Right is more fanatical in its support for Israel than many Jews are.

That being said, the difference is the non-Jews who are really really supportive of Israel tend to already vote Conservative (either for religious reasons or because they support Israel because they like how they smash the "barbaric" Arabs) - so among that group Harper's extreme pro-Israel stance was preaching to the converted.  Harper's support for Israel did get some traditionally Liberal votes in the Jewish community - though not nearly as much as he would have liked.

But now that Iggy and Harper have the same position, Harper can't use Israel as a wedge issue.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

We should also be pressing the PM publicly to back up a two state solution...

No, Sean, that's where you step way over the line. Canada has no more business suggesting the number of states or form of government in the Middle East than it has in dictating the form of government in Afghanistan. Our government's duty is to condemn Israel's violations of international law and U.N. resolutions, and demand that Israel be sanctioned until it ceases its outlaw activity. Canada, and indeed you and I, have no business telling the people of the region what shape a future political solution should take.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

I disagree, Oldgoat. I don't believe SSC is trolling and your threat for him to be gone is heavy-handed. Without SSC in this discussion, this "debate" would be a monologue.

Caissa, I respect your views and always have. But if babble ever turns into a forum where we must have a "two-sided" debate with the kind of racist pro-imperialist provocative shit that SSC is spewing, I will certainly not waste one second of my time here. Babble is for people that AGREE WITH EACH OTHER on such fundamental issues as to whether mass murder and national enslavement should or should not be visited on the Palestinian people - and we then vigorously discuss and disagree on the issues of how such problems should be resolved. Every day I argue, convince, persuade my fellow workers and union members and relatives and neighbours about the basic principles involved. I will NOT tolerate babble being dragged down to the level of "free speech for everyone, no holds barred".

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

We should also be pressing the PM publicly to back up a two state solution...

No, Sean, that's where you step way over the line. Canada has no more business suggesting the number of states or form of government in the Middle East than it has in dictating the form of government in Afghanistan. Our government's duty is to condemn Israel's violations of international law and U.N. resolutions, and demand that Israel be sanctioned until it ceases its outlaw activity. Canada, and indeed you and I, have no business telling the people of the region what shape a future political solution should take.

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.

 

Sean in Ottawa

sorry double post

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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?

You are either confused, Sean, or hard of hearing. Canada must loudly, publicly, continuously, condemn the Israeli war criminals. It must participate in international movements of boycott and blockade against this outlaw state. It must treat Israel exactly the way we treated apartheid South Africa. It must publicly demand adherence to the U.N. resolutions, which among them outline the internationally recognized solutions to the border issues and issues of national self-determination of the people.

But you are asking Canada (i.e. the government) to promote a "two-state solution"? You think the people of the region need Stephen Harper's (or Sean's) kindly advice as to how to arrange their affairs once the crimes cease being committed? You haven't even figured out yet that such international colonial interference and white-man's-burden-ship is what has fueled and perpetuated the subjugation of the people and the perpetuation of warfare and bloodshed in the first place?

Don't lecture me about how we can't be stand-offish. I am demanding that Canada take a courageous international stand and back it up by isolating these pariahs and uniting with all other countries of the same mind. But giving advice as to good governance? That is imperial highhandedness, racist condescension, and naked interference. The people of the region will tell you (and I will support them) to keep your fingers out of their affairs.

Cueball Cueball's picture

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.

Sean in Ottawa

The two state solution did not come from somewhere else it came from there. To suggest that this is some kind of racist thing to ask for progress towards what has was a local solution is absurd and I'll stop there rather than getting very impolite.

Seems you are trying to create controversy where there is none. 

Caissa

Unionist wrote:  racist pro-imperialist provocative shit that SSC is spewing,

 

I have respect for your opinions as well Unionist. Where we differ is on whether SSC is committing the sin you accuse him of. By and large I agree with the essence of the rest of your post.

Cueball Cueball's picture

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:

Quote:
Truth is, he (Barak) has turned every stone to build settlements. Since his first day in office, he has accelerated the pace of setting up new settlements (in the guise of “enlarging” existing ones), confiscating lands, demolishing Palestinian homes and building “by-pass roads” (whose main purpose is to add Palestinian lands to the “settlement blocs” which he wants to annex to Israel.) In all these activities, Barak has done more than Netanyahu.

In the political field, too, Barak has upstaged Netanyahu: Bibi returned at least the greater part of the town Hebron to the Palestinians. Barak has not returned one single inch of occupied territory.

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.

Sunday Hat

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.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

With all the carnage and the blood of children flowing freely, Michael Ignatieff stands four square with the blood letters even repeating the Big Lies:

Quote:
 "Israel has been attacked from Gaza, not just last year, but for almost 10 years. They evacuated from Gaza so there is no occupation in Gaza."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/564094 

saga saga's picture

Unionist wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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?

You are either confused, Sean, or hard of hearing. Canada must loudly, publicly, continuously, condemn the Israeli war criminals. It must participate in international movements of boycott and blockade against this outlaw state. It must treat Israel exactly the way we treated apartheid South Africa. It must publicly demand adherence to the U.N. resolutions, which among them outline the internationally recognized solutions to the border issues and issues of national self-determination of the people.

But you are asking Canada (i.e. the government) to promote a "two-state solution"? You think the people of the region need Stephen Harper's (or Sean's) kindly advice as to how to arrange their affairs once the crimes cease being committed? You haven't even figured out yet that such international colonial interference and white-man's-burden-ship is what has fueled and perpetuated the subjugation of the people and the perpetuation of warfare and bloodshed in the first place?

Don't lecture me about how we can't be stand-offish. I am demanding that Canada take a courageous international stand and back it up by isolating these pariahs and uniting with all other countries of the same mind. But giving advice as to good governance? That is imperial highhandedness, racist condescension, and naked interference. The people of the region will tell you (and I will support them) to keep your fingers out of their affairs.

 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?

 

 

Pages

Topic locked