Layton, Davies, and rest of NDP offered trip to Israel

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

 

more's the pity she recanted and admitted her words were a 'mistake'..

 

Again, it's not for any of us to make assumptions about what she meant by her statement - whether it was a slip, a mistake or intended. It is also not our business to read anything into her apology that is not on the page, nor to make assumptions about what actually went down between her and the party.

We each speak for ourselves. We should let her do the same.

KenS

Gino wrote:

I feel really bad for Libby Davies who is currently the only honourable exception to the NDP's cowardice on this issue. 

Libby does really good work, on this issue as well as many others. But on this one at least, people have the wrong idea to think she is "brave". She says what she feels needs to be said. And thats good on her. But she has never done risks doing it [as compared say with being openly gay]. Everything she has ever done around this issue has been from a position that checks out with being politically safe, for herself [which is easy], and for the NDP.

She inadvertently blundered where it isnt safe to be. And she has strategically beat a retreat. She would have done that anyway. And she'll be more cautious for a while- and didnt have to be forced to do that.

I fail to see how that is courageous, either what goes on now or the work she has done on an ongoing basis.

I apologize for overstating the case. I didn't bring up the word cowardice. My real point is that while what Libby says is different and useful, she is not braver. She stays within limits. And she sure as hell did not mean to let out what she did, so its unrealistic [at best] to be commending her for saying what she did not intend to say, and would have apologized for no matter what her Caucus mates said.

But even if I did overstate the case, and that legitimatly pisses people off, is it that hard to pick up on the substance of what is being said?

KenS

Stockholm wrote:

Ken, I actually don't think this is true. As I've mentioned before, polls I've seen show that only about 15% of Canadians describe themselves as sympathizing more with Israel, compared to an equal number who sympathize more with the Palestinians and about 70% who are neutral and just wish everyone would recognize everyone else's right to exist and lay down their arms. I think that there is a certain segment of opinion leaders and pundits who start from a "position of quite uncritical support of what Israel determines to be its so-called "security needs"" - but I think that the vast majority of canadians really don't give a damn.

Yes and no.

The yes part: they dont give that much of a damn, and the polling numbers.

But what those polling numbers tell us the general sense that Israel has gone too far, and is more or less the bully and aggressor.

The questions that go into that do not get at all at how much support and how far people would favour tilting towards the Palestinians [more than Israel letting up on the ferocity of its attacks and its continued land grabs]. And that is the "zone" of opinion that is relevant as to whether Canadians would be sufficiently ripe for swift boating around the issue.

Which is where the need for Libby's apology comes in: without it there was a wide open door to tag her and the NDP with challenging Israel's right to exist.

So she made the apology. To turn around and unequivocally reject the offer of the visit would be to reopen that wound.

Which is why the approach would be to simply connect the offered trip with an equally 'official' trip to Gaza- without explictly making it conditional.

remind remind's picture

Good grief, KenS, I concur Kropotkin and Michelle.

 

...it seems like women politicians, like their counters parts in the rest of society, have to be a 100% better than a man at their position, or they are open to attacks-even from their supposed allies, but perhaps even then they have to be more than 100% better, as I believe Libby is 100% over most all politicians in Ottawa, other than perhaps Bill and Joe. Though even then she is a tireless human rights activist on many many fronts.

 

Saying that does not mean I think she is "perfect" either, as I am fully aware of the fact she is,  as yet anyway,  a human. She has done several things that have ticked me off,  but I consider that normal, as no one is perfect in all they do, and how she sees a way to achieve things may be different than mine. And she does not keep me in the loop about how she is fulfilling her personal activist's path dictates, based upon her life experiences and knowlege.

Though I would be willing if she wanted to. :D

kropotkin1951

So I think I just heard you claim that Libby is interchangeable with Pat Martin.  It would make no difference if we had no Libby and more Pat like MP's is what I hear you saying.  I guess what you don't like is that some of us would not go anywhere near a party that only had Pat and Judy's and not progressives like Libby or Bill. 

Ken you and Fidel cause me to dislike the NDP more than any other posters on this board and I have voted NDP in every federal election since the 'corporate bums" campaign.  But go ahead, you and Fidel should continue to attack people like me and tell me Libby and Bill are the same as Pat and Judy. No Libby is not brave not like Pat or Judy with their principled pro-Israel stands.

Caissa

I think KenS was reacting to perceived hagiogarphy. We can tend to be a bit Manichaean around here, in the more popular sense of the word.

kropotkin1951

Yup and only he and Fidel have the NDP credentials to make that kind of comment.  Anyone else delving into that area is anti-NDP and thus either a Liberal troll or commie hack.  The double standard in the comments that are allowable about NDP politicians that "some babblers" apply to others while not restricting themselves to the same set of rules. That is what I was reacting too.

Caissa

We cross-posted Kropotkin. I hadn't read post #55 when I posted.

Max Bialystock

Maybe a compromise can be reached.  They can just put Liberal turncoat Tom Mulcair in charge of Mideast policy.

KenS

And if Libby had not made that abject apology. Or if she or the NDP went undoing it by things like for example simply refusing the offer of the trip and calling the CIC what it is, she and the NDP would be swift boated.

And if the NDP were swift boated as not affirming Israel's right to exist, they would not be the only casualty. Because the CIC and Harper would have a nice juicy channel changer away from the flotilla massacre and the spotlight brought back onto the gemocidal Gaza blockade.

KenS

Since K. is intent on twisting my words I'm not going to bother untangling that,

But I don't know what everyone else is thinking, so I'll speak to that.

I never said that Libby is a coward. I did say that if her colleagues are cowrds then she is one too.

I apologized for that. It was an overstatement on the main point that I was making: that Libby says different things, and good thing she does; but she is not "brave" in doing that. She has consistently done so from a place where it is politically safe for her and the NDP. The first time she inadvertently strayed into what was not politically safe territory, she unequivocally repudiated her own words. And she didnt have to be forced to do that.

Libby Davies has achieved a great deal on this issue from that politically safe positioning. I did not say she is not brave to cut Libby down to size- though with hindsight I can see that even charitably inclined people could think that was my purpose.

My purpose in saying that she has on this issue always worked from a politically safe place is because in attributing exceptional courage to what she  has said and done people are misunderstanding what Libby Davies as well as the NDP can be expected to do.

A lot of people around here like what she said in that video- leaving aside that it was a bit muddled. And they see her rejection of that as the exception. ["They made her do it."] Not true: tripping into what she said was the exception, and she would never have done that intentionaly.

Unionist

KenS wrote:
She stays within limits. And she sure as hell did not mean to let out what she did, so its unrealistic [at best] to be commending her for saying what she did not intend to say, and would have apologized for no matter what her Caucus mates said.

You're wrong about that. You're only talking about "1948" - a question of historical interpretation.

Yet - she aso broached the BDS question - a vital question of action today, which could do serious damage to the Zionist state. She expressed her personal inclination in favour of it, and indicated she wanted it discussed in the political arena. Mulcair had a seizure over that and demanded she apologize specifically for that. She did not. I can't (regrettably) imagine any other NDP MP, let alone spokesperson, having the courage she did on raising the boycott issue.

I'm not sure why you want to debate how we characterize Libby's courage. The importance is her activism, her outspokenness on matters of principle, and her leadership's attempt to silence her. That much is undeniable.

KenS

She didnt withdraw what she said about BDS becaue that is sufficeintly safe territory- not because she is courageous.

I already touched on why taking issue with what is safe or not. Have to leave expanding on that till later.

Tommy_Paine

 

 

Is this offer really open to all NDP members?

 

Because, while we're at it, I've never been convinced that unification of Italy in the 1860's was a great idea, either.  Nor was the decision to grant Hawaii Statehood such a brilliant enterprise.     

 

And, I have grave concerns over the actual cultural relevance of Cajuns as compared to Acadians, but not until about a month before Mardi Gras.

 

 

NDPP

Well, we'll leave the ndp waiting for godot true believers contingent to do what they do best. But clearly, factually, and up to the  present, Canada, including the NDP, has done NOTHING for Palestine and EVERYTHING for Zionist Israel. Meanwhile the Palestinian people have much more serious issues to deal with then just another sad sellout junket from Canada.

Palestinian Child Tortured  - His Privates Electrified by Israeli Interrogators

http://www.imemc.org/article/58997

"The child says that the interrogators used electricity in torturing him by attaching wires to his testicles.."

Devouring Al Quds in Broad Daylight

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/1203-devouring-...

"...so that Israel can realize its routinely invoked mantra of Jerusalem being 'Israel's eternal and undivided capital.."

KenS

Unionist wrote:

KenS wrote:
She stays within limits. And she sure as hell did not mean to let out what she did, so its unrealistic [at best] to be commending her for saying what she did not intend to say, and would have apologized for no matter what her Caucus mates said.

You're wrong about that. You're only talking about "1948" - a question of historical interpretation.

Yet - she aso broached the BDS question - a vital question of action today, which could do serious damage to the Zionist state. She expressed her personal inclination in favour of it, and indicated she wanted it discussed in the political arena. Mulcair had a seizure over that and demanded she apologize specifically for that. She did not. I can't (regrettably) imagine any other NDP MP, let alone spokesperson, having the courage she did on raising the boycott issue.

As I already said, the consistent pattern here around what is safe or not. Mulcair fulminating is Mulcair filminating, thats it.

Libby might be the only NDP MP that would want to bring up the boycott issue. Whether or not she is the only one, thats whats different about her. But it isn't Libby being courageous... and I'll get to why bother with that.

But Libby can bring that up without bringing an unstoppable firestorm on her and the NDP. So she didnt apologize for having brought it up.

She apologized for connecting "occupation" and 1948, because unlike raisng the boycott which is merely controversial, her muddled comments brought her WAY over the boundary into unsafe territory where she would have left the NDP wide open for swift boating had she not made the  abject and unequivocal apology. [And included in unequivocal is that you do not explain what you really meant or what is right. Because those will cancel the apology.]

It doesnt matter that she said 1948 instead of 1947 or what the "historical interpretations" are. Those are details that don't matter for swift boating. Had that door been not firmly closed she and the NDP would have been swift boated into questioning Israel's right to exist, with the CIC and Harper having a nice diversion away from the flotilla massacre and the re-highlighted Gaza blockade.

I'm going to finally open that Communications 101, and I'll use this as an example, so we dont need to divert this discussion here with minutae of whether or not Libby had to apologize- and keep that apology unequivocal.

So... keeping in mind that potential for swift boating has not been accepted, but if it is, then I think that goes straight to the question of what opens up into unsafe territory. It is not about whether Libby Davies is courageous on this issue or not. Its about what can be expected of people in parliamentary politics, which means in political parties.

IE, hold constant your opinion of the opinon of the NDP, assume that you aren't going to change your opinion that they are little or zero worthy of your support [which is not going to change much over one issue anyway].... just MAYBE its a distraction to invest a lot of energy into pillorying the NDP for positioning it fails to take that would lead to such serious consequences.

Now thats a huge can of worms that we don't really want to get into here. [If anywhere.] And even if it was accepted in principle that of course this will sometimes be the case.... then where is the line where you can say the same things, but the possible negative consequences to the NDP are just not to that degree? On the other hand, I could point out that this is a case that demonstartates that currently there is no serious attention given to the possibility that in some cases what people expect is just light years beyond what is desriable to do when the overall ramifications are considered. I don't get the sense that any such question is considered as even possibly legitimate.Like I said, not the place for those kind of questions. But you asked why it matters, so I thought I'd put the questions out there.

Go do that Communications 101 thread now. Swift boating is as good a place as any to start.

Edited to add: Communications 101: The threat posed by Swift Boating

NDPP

Thanks KenS for the explanation of the apology. One wishes success to those NDPers who understand the urgency of making the necessary changes. George Galloway is an example of what is both possible and required.

Ripple

http://ijvcanada.org/uncategorized/jewish-group-to-layton-investigate-is...

Quote:
The New Democratic Party should reject the invitation of the Canada-Israel Committee to host or facilitate a trip by Jack Layton and his caucus members to Israel, says Independent Jewish Voices - Canada. The Canada-Israel Committee made the offer in the wake of the manufactured uproar about remarks by NDP Deputy Leader Libby Davies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"If Jack Layton accepts this offer," says Independent Jewish Voices spokesperson Larry Haiven, "he and his party will forfeit any ability to speak with authority and impartiality on the issue. They will be caving in to intimidation from the pro-Israel lobby. The Conservatives and the Liberals have abdicated any sense of even-handedness on the Israel-Palestine file. Will the NDP follow suit or develop an independent position?

IJV is demanding that instead of capitulating to this pressure from an organization that provides unquestioning support to one side of this conflict, Layton and his caucus members visit both Israel and Palestine, including the West Bank and Gaza, but with the guidance of a party neutral to the conflict, such as the United Nations or a credible international human rights organization.

"If the NDP wants to speak intelligently and credibly about the issue, it must not allow itself to be led by the State of Israel or its agents in Canada," says Haiven, "To do otherwise would be a sign of capitulation and abandonment of NDP supporters' shared desire for a just resolution to the Israel occupation of Palestine. The thousands of people who wrote to decry the party leader's abandonment of Libby Davies will become even more disillusioned with the NDP."

Independent Jewish Voices - Canada is a national human rights organization whose mandate is to promote a just resolution to the conflict in Israel and Palestine through the application of international law and respect for the human rights of all parties. IJV has chapters in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton,Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Vancouver plus many individual members.

 

NDPP

"If the NDP wants to speak intelligently and credibly about the issue..". Well we already know that isn't the case and they haven't thus far:

"Canada is so friendly that there was no need to convince or explain anything to anyone..." Avigdor Lieberman on visiting Canada

Why is a party self described as 'the most progressive in Canada' supporting such a man and his policies? Clearly because it is NOT in fact 'the most progressive' any more than Israel is 'the most democratic country in the Middle East'. Why is this party not compelled by its membership to stop supporting such a monstrous regime?

Israeli Foreign Minister Wants Palestinians Stripped of Citizenship and Relocated

http://thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100626/FOREIGN/706259...

"Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's far-right foreign minister, set out this week what he called a 'blueprint for a resolution to the conflict' with the Palestinians, that demands most of the country's large Palestinian minority be stripped of citizenship and relocated outside Israel's future borders.."

JKR

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Why is a party self described as 'the most progressive in Canada' supporting such a man and his policies?

How is the NDP supporting Avigdor Lieberman?

I don't see it.

KenS

Point made in the thread Communications 101: The threat posed by Swift Boating

KenS wrote:

Its worth noting that when I have previously suggested this response by the NDP, and I am pretty sure I have put it out there more than once, originally and maybe repeatedly in the thread about the offer of the trip to Israel, it has always been phrased as:

A number of people have said the NDP should do a flat rejection. The same people who are the most upset by the NDP's response to Libby's flub, and who while they don't blame Libby, dont like her abject apology either. While no one explicitly said they wanted that flat rejection for delivering a message- I didn't make that up.

My response around the idea of rejecting the trip has been that

1.] If the NDP does a flat rejection it will be back into the frying pan on this issue. Granted, most people, all the objestors, dont like the NDP hopping out of the frying pan. We don't agree on how much damage would come from staying in the frying pan. [My contention that without Libbys apology the NDP would be swift boated into challenging Israel's right to exist.] Mostly people just reject my claim of how much damage there would be, without substantively arguing the point- with I think LTJ being the only exception. At any rate, leaving aside that disagreement, people dont like the NDP jumping off the hot seat.

So it follows of course that the objectors don't care that a flat blunt rejection of the trip would get the NDP back into hot water.

But, I don't just say that.

2.] I always suggest that the NDP could without directly rejecting the attempt at co-opting, could push back and turn the tables by graciously accepting, but saying at the same time the NDP is going on an official fact finding mission on the conditions of the population in Gaza.

Despite the fact that at least addresses what people are looking for- not kowtowing, and pushing on Israel- not a single person commented on whether or not that would be a good strategy.

The only comments I got were addressing the first part, #1, that it be craven to not do a flat rejection. 

Tinman

The NDP is inb hot water over Isreal, not because Libby Davies is anti semetic and they won't thorw her out of the party for it, but because most of the party feel the same way and the vast majority of Canadians know it. I find it incredible as well that the NDP who support gay rights, condemns the only place in the whole middle east, where people are free to openly practice the gay lifestyle. To point out the hypocracy, is a waste of time. Taliban Jack has made a living being a hypocryte, why should he stop now?

Tinman

remind wrote:

So you think the ability to "practise a gay lifestyle", what ever that means, trumps the murder of millions of Palestinians?

I think it demonstrates the absolute hypocracy of those who support terrorists in their blind hatred of a whole race of people. If you are gay, and you side with Hamas, you really should know that you cannot be openly gay in Gaza or in any other part of the middle east for that matter. They would kill you for it. And this is ok with you? Talk about useful idiots. I'd also lke to see where you come up with "millions of Plaestinians" that would be fun reading.

remind remind's picture

So....you think the ability to "practise the gay lifestyle", what ever that means, trumps the murder and displacement of millions of Palestinians?

 

it is not the NDP who are  inb the erong here it is people like YOU!

Maysie Maysie's picture

Oz never did give nothing to the Tinman.

Including posting privileges.

Polunatic2

Would a trip like this be a violation of the BDS campaign? Are politicians in a different category than cultural workers? 

Tinmaan

Michelle wrote:

Actually, I think bagkitty is right.  They should go on the junket, but they should make a condition of their going that they also have unfettered access to Gaza, the West Bank, and Palestinian organizations that might also want to talk to them and tell them their side of the conflict.

If this is refused, then oh well, the NDP at least tried to see both sides of the issue, so they would not be considered to be just refusing for no reason, and it would show up these trips for the one-sided affairs they really are.

 

 

I agree with  you Michelle, they SHOULD go and get all the access to Gaza they want. Then they won't be able to spew any silly nonsense abouot how terrible life is in Gaza, [ one of the highest rates of obesity in the world btw at 33.2 per cent of the adult population being obese ] and they could even dine at the 5 star restaurant called roots, that just opened there and rivals the culinary excellence of some of Europes finest establishments. By all means let them go. I'll even drive them to the airport myself.

remind remind's picture

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your freerepublic indoctrinations with us, bye bye again.......

 

Quote:
Attention, insupportable photographs! STARVING GAZA! ( some good ...

4 Jun 2010 ... The West Bank and Gaza have some of the world's highest obesity rates. 12 posted on 06/04/2010 3:34:10 PM PDT by Riodacat (Never attribute ...

">www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2528050/posts

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

clap clap

remind remind's picture

an apparently him and the other fools from freerepublic do not get that the guy who posted that bull shit at freerepublic even told them that the photographs and statements could not be supported.

what the hell do they think insupportable means?

 

in case they think it means a truthful account that can be substantiated when it means the opposite, i will go get definition...

 

Main Entry: in·sup·port·able
Pronunciation: \ˌin(t)-sə-ˈpȯr-tə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French, from Late Latin insupportabilis, from Latin in- + supportare to support
Date: circa 1530

: not supportable: a : more than can be endured <insupportable pain> b : impossible to justify <insupportable charges>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insupportable

 

quite the thing eh, the guy tells them he is lying to them, and then they still go around and repeat it as truth. what bunch of ass nubbies.

Tinman48

remind wrote:

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your freerepublic indoctrinations with us, bye bye again.......

 

Quote:
Attention, insupportable photographs! STARVING GAZA! ( some good ...

4 Jun 2010 ... The West Bank and Gaza have some of the world's highest obesity rates. 12 posted on 06/04/2010 3:34:10 PM PDT by Riodacat (Never attribute ...

">www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2528050/posts

I would gladly respond with evidence to support my position, but it seems there are those here who don't like my point of view. Getting tossed twice in two hours must be some kind of record.