Lebanon: one year later
Fri, 2007-07-13 05:32
#1
Lebanon: one year later
Fri, 2007-07-13 05:32
#2
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/arts_media.shtml?sh_itm=71a4a234eaee7b9ccb07bf1a8df... it really been a year already?[/url]
Fri, 2007-07-13 07:40
#3
N.Beltov
quote:
On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers as part of an ongoing campaign to free thousands of Arab political prisoners from Israeli jails. On that same summer day, Israel attacked Lebanon in a violent military campaign which left over 1,200 Lebanese civilians dead, large parts of the national infrastructure destroyed and southern Lebanon covered in over one million unexploded cluster bombs. An Israeli military campaign of collective punishment unleashed on the people of Lebanon continued for 33 days until a UN-brokered ceasefire on Aug. 14, 2006. ....The Canadian government issued multiple public statements of support for the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon, which Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper labeled a “measured response,” and Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff “didn't lose any sleep over.”
On this topic, there is a recent publication by Noam Chomsky as well:
[url=http://www.monthlyreview.org/insidelebanon.htm]Inside Lebanon[/url]
quote:
In May 2006, Noam and Carol Chomsky visited Lebanon for the first time—just two months before Israel unleashed a new military campaign against both Lebanon and Palestine. During their eight-day trip, they toured refugee camps and a former Israeli prison and torture compound; met with political leaders—including the pro-government coalition; and Noam conducted interviews and gave public lectures on U.S. imperialism and the imminent crises facing the Middle East.
Fri, 2007-07-13 10:19
#4
I recently talked with the ex-Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament, Peggy Mason about this. She stressed that Canada's recent positions on the Middle East are completely counterproductive, because Canada could be one of the peace brokers in the area.
Generally, Canada has been seen as pro-US, but not slavishly so; pro-Israel, but not anti-Palestinian. What is required in the Mideast is a group of countries, balanced in its composition, who together can facilitate peace by providing opportunities for negotiation and cessation of hostilities.
Of course, the US can't fulfill that role, especially with its army in Iraq. Germany may not be acceptable to Israel, and many other nations are too dependent on Middle Eastern oil to be seen as neutral. The Palestinians have a number of allies who may lean their way, but are not intransigent and have no interest in prolonging the conflict.
So when Canada veers towards the US position, as it has done recently, it is actually sabotaging the possibilities of peace. A more neutral role will make it possible for Canada to assist in peace building, rather than posturing.
Fri, 2007-07-13 10:25
#5
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]So when Canada veers towards the US position, as it has done recently, it is actually sabotaging the possibilities of peace. A more neutral role will make it possible for Canada to assist in peace building, rather than posturing.[/b]
Jeff I disagree. Canada has never been able to play any role of peace maker in the Middle East.
Recent shifts in foreign policy aside from 1945-2007 with the exception of Diefenbakers 5 years, Clark's 9 months, Mulroney's 9 years and now Harpers couple the majority of the time we were led by Liberals
This "left of centre" leadership did not provide a pulput for Canada to take a lead in trying to help in the Middle East.
To suggest that if Canada went more centrist we may have a role does not in my opinion make sense since Canada's historical legacy in the middle east does not show that.
When Mike sent the UNEF into Egypt our troops were not welcomed at first since our uniforms and regimental names were too close the the Brits.
Unfort Canada is a smaller middle power that will never have the presence of prestige to play a real role in any peace process.
Fri, 2007-07-13 10:34
#6
Well, Dr. Mason told me that Canada had done work behind the scenes in the Oslo peace process, which was an attempt, at least, at peace.
Sometimes such efforts can be very useful without being publicized.
For example, at the Oslo peace process, the Israelis appeared with very sophisticated maps, including water resources, etc. The Palestinians were underfunded, and so had much poorer maps, not so up to date, etc. To even have a group of countries providing authenticated maps to the parties can be a useful sort of step.
No one thinks Canada can impose a peace on the Middle East. But by avoiding blaming one side, we can maintain a usefulness which could lead somewhere.
Fri, 2007-07-13 10:40
#7
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Well, Dr. Mason told me that Canada had done work behind the scenes in the Oslo peace process, which was an attempt, at least, at peace.[/b]
Fair enough. but I really wonder if we were seen as neutral or more of a go between with teh USofA
that being said I hope you are not calling for a return of Mulroney since he was PM when Oslo started etc [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-07-13 11:06
#8
No, I'm for Layton for PM.
But it is important to see that Harper isn't following the old Progressive Conservative policy on this, he's out there with George W. Bush making a mess of everything.
Thu, 2007-07-26 15:36
#9
Actually Mulroney tends to give off the impression that he is more in line with the Harper position and that he is more "pro-Israel" than the Liberals.
Fri, 2007-07-27 12:39
#10
Actually, it is useful to refer to evidence, and not to make statements based upon "the impression someone tends to give off."
I was speaking to Mulroney's Ambassador for Disarmament. She told me that the Mulroney policy of previous years is being subverted by the present government.
She believes that Canada played a behind-the-scenes role as a peacemaker in the Middle East, a role which is no longer available because of the way in which the present government toes the American position, thus making its every act suspicious to Arab nations and peoples.
While she was Ambassador, there was, of course, some suspicion of Canada as a possible American lackey. But Canada had done enough of an independent nature to defray at least some of that suspicion.