May I get in on that bet, too? I'll bet that Libby's status within the party does not change over this flap. Nada. Mucho do bout nought.
Sure. But what will Babble do without Fidel for a whole month?
This will all be forgotten once another ReformaTory guvmint scandal surfaces with the Liberal Party propping them up, or the Liberals suffer another leadership crisis or another.
It would be super nice if this didn't become some sort of pissing match amongst regulars here. Super nice.
I wish his defence had been stronger and more forceful but it is the right decision - and a very different decision than Alexa made with Svend, as I recall, when I believe she stripped Svend of his critic post for having the temerity to present a petition (which he said he didn't personally support) to take "God" out of the national anthem, IIRC.
You don't recall correctly. She did indeed publicly criticize him for the God thing, and sent him to the back benches. That was 1999. But his removal as foreign affairs critic came in 2002, over the same issue as Libby's sin - trying to visit Arafat's compound and publicly criticizing the Israeli aggressors and murderers (though he used more diplomatic language than I).
I'm critical of Jack on his approach to this controversy, but there's no question in my mind that Ed or Alexa would have removed Libby as Deputy Leader instantly had the situation occured under their leadership.
So, you don't think Libby will resign, for the "good" (what a word) of the party? I hope you're right. But what Jack has done to date is unconscionable and unnecessary. I don't see how this will blow over.
Mulcair is a total disgrace for his comments on Libby - he has the right to disagree on the substance of her remarks, but to call for Libby to bow and scrape to the smears is beyond the pale. I have no time for him at all and will do anything I can to make sure he is never the leader of the federal NDP.
I'll do better than that. I'll vote against him next time and encourage everyone I know to do likewise. And I won't campaign for him again. And I won't give money. If he's not an MP (pray god), he won't be leader.
And I know a lot of progressive Jews who think like Mulcair [and Pat Martin].
Really. What's progressive about them? They support humanitarian intervention in Darfur? Same-sex marriage? They volunteer at food banks? They march in the Pride parade with the correct slogans?
Again, the point is that conflicted views about Israel, what is in my terms very misplaced sympathy, is a substantial stream among progressive Jews and non-Jews, and it runs deeper than any utilitarian need to pander.
Your understanding of "progressive" now ranks with your previous comments about "Jews" - observed from a great distance, through a glass darkly.
Nor is it the same people who sympathise with interventionist projects like Afghanistan... more often than not it will be people implaccably and unqualified opposed to such intervention. But Israel is different: "Israel shouldnt be doing anything like what they did in Gaza, I agree thats WAY beyond the pale, but you know..... "
Ah, I see. "I'm a progressive Jew, but not when it comes to the Jewish state." This is the very definition of hypocrisy, of privilege, of colonial arrogance. In the 1950s, one encountered many such Jews. Today, I don't know any. A Canadian Jew who calls for immediate withdrawal of foreigners from Afghanistan, but thinks Israel is just defending itself? Name one. They don't exist.
Not just on this issue Unionist- if people had to pass every litmus test on what is progressive, there would only be enough people to put together the obligatory and ever so limited in themselves marches and "forums". A few hundred to maybe a couple thousand in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. 50 on a good day in Halifax. Two people in a coffee shop in places I've lived my life.
And even those depressing few: some of them on principle wouldn't go to marches against Israeli actions, others wouldnt go to....
It would be super nice if this didn't become some sort of pissing match amongst regulars here. Super nice.
Meh. The party is crummy. Jack is a sell out. They will find a way to dipose of Libby. No reason I shouldn't say so, and betting is fun. Just think how quite the place is going to be after Libby gets pasted. 
A Jew who supports Israel. A white person who supported the South African apartheid regime. Do you see a difference, Ken? Is this "hair-splitting"? Was Bev Desjarlais a really progressive person who just had this one little difference with the party - that she was a raving homophobe?
So get back to me when you find a Canadian Jew that defends Israel but is "progressive".
You don't mean Bernie Farber, do you?
And your mother probably wears ballet slippers. So there.
He sure told us a thing or two. And our little dog Toto, too! It's not in the words that he posted, It's not in the way you look or the things that you say that you do
Hold the line! babble love isn't always on time.
I sent a mass email to libby davies, iggy, bob rae, harper and layton about how much i love libby and how they should all learn from her. :D
Lots of Canadian Jew defend Israel. No matter how qualified their support, it adds up to a lot.
And I did say just as much true for the goyim- progressives included. Even more weight in that.
And don't take out of context my hair splitting comment. I was acknowledging I made the mistake to refer to a 'pro-Zionist vote' among non-Jews... which 'technically, in the present company, would imply people who elevate pro-Zionist stands to a top priortiy. those being a small number. I corrected that and reffered to the context I think was already there, and on which i know we agree: quite unncritical support for Israel is really broad in Canada, and Jews are just a small fraction of that.
Nighty night everybody.
Don't forget the ballet slippers, army boots, or whatever you wear to bed.
quite unncritical support for Israel is really broad in Canada, and Jews are just a small fraction of that.
That's not what the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bbcwspoll260410.pdf]latest BBC poll on global views[/url] (April 18, 2010) would indicate. It shows 23% of Canadians having a "mainly positive" view of Israel, while 38% are "mainly negative".
I'm not denying the impact of the nonstop media-cultural-political glorification of Israeli aggression and statehood. I just have difficulty when it's exaggerated. That can give grist to the mill of the unprincipled politicians who are trying to decide whether to kiss and make up, or throw under the bus.
I'll do better than that. I'll vote against him next time and encourage everyone I know to do likewise. And I won't campaign for him again. And I won't give money. If he's not an MP (pray god), he won't be leader.
Who will you be voting for instead?
I'll do better than that. I'll vote against him next time and encourage everyone I know to do likewise. And I won't campaign for him again. And I won't give money. If he's not an MP (pray god), he won't be leader.
Who will you be voting for instead?
Depends who's running. I vote for individuals, not parties. I voted for Mulcair in the last two elections (general and the byelection where he first won), and for Bloc candidates in the elections prior to that. There are some Bloquistes I won't vote for, and I have never voted for a Liberal or Conservative. As far as I'm concerned, Mulcair (unless he recants - unlikely) is now back in the Liberal party from whence he came.
Why, Debater, whom do you think I should vote for?
I'll do better than that. I'll vote against him next time and encourage everyone I know to do likewise. And I won't campaign for him again. And I won't give money. If he's not an MP (pray god), he won't be leader.
Who will you be voting for instead?
Depends who's running. I vote for individuals, not parties. I voted for Mulcair in the last two elections (general and the byelection where he first won), and for Bloc candidates in the elections prior to that. There are some Bloquistes I won't vote for, and I have never voted for a Liberal or Conservative. As far as I'm concerned, Mulcair (unless he recants - unlikely) is now back in the Liberal party from whence he came.
Why, Debater, whom do you think I should vote for?
It's up to you, obviously. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. But if you are interested in defeating Mulcair in the next election and sending him a message, the best choice would be to vote Liberal in Outremont. But if that's not to your comfort level, you should vote for someone else.
Btw, Mulcair has never been a member of the Federal Liberal Party. He was a member of the PLQ - and they are a separate party who do not consider themselves part of the Federal party, as they have been happy to point out over the years.
It would be super nice if this didn't become some sort of pissing match amongst regulars here. Super nice.
... and the chances are somewhere between fat and slim (and tending towards the extreme)
But I agree, it would be super nice.
I would do the same, Unionist, with the caveat that the other person I voted for would be more progressive on the Middle East file - it's not clear to me that even the BQ is resisting the massive pro-Israel hysteria rampant on the Canadian political scene. I might vote Green if I lived in Outremont, though I'm not clear what their stand is on Israel's occupation and violation of human rights and international law either.
And KenS, please spare me the lines about all the progressive Jews in Canada that support Israel - there are so many Jews WITHIN Israel that absolutely loathe what their government is doing in their name. If a voter will only vote NDP if we support a murderous and criminal regime that practices apartheid and oppresses innocent people in occupied lands, then quite frankly, I don't want that vote anyway, and neither should Layton, Mulcair, or any other NDP MP or candidate.
I'll do better than that. I'll vote against him next time and encourage everyone I know to do likewise. And I won't campaign for him again. And I won't give money. If he's not an MP (pray god), he won't be leader.
Who will you be voting for instead?
Depends who's running. I vote for individuals, not parties. I voted for Mulcair in the last two elections (general and the byelection where he first won), and for Bloc candidates in the elections prior to that. There are some Bloquistes I won't vote for, and I have never voted for a Liberal or Conservative. As far as I'm concerned, Mulcair (unless he recants - unlikely) is now back in the Liberal party from whence he came.
Why, Debater, whom do you think I should vote for?
Well we surely know by now which party he desperately does not want all of us to vote for, that's for sure. His concerns are our concerns, and never the twains shall meet.
It's up to you, obviously. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. But if you are interested in defeating Mulcair in the next election and sending him a message, the best choice would be to vote Liberal in Outremont. But if that's not to your comfort level, you should vote for someone else.
My voice is more powerful than my vote. I'll send him a message in a variety of ways. One will be through my union - which I had convinced to not campaign against Mulcair (i.e. for the BQ) in the last two elections, by persuading them that Mulcair was the best bet to topple the Liberals who have always held this riding. Not this time. And the BQ-Liberal % gap has been narrowing in recent years, so with a collapse of Mulcair's vote, a BQ win is difficult but not inconceivable.
Btw, Mulcair has never been a member of the Federal Liberal Party. He was a member of the PLQ - and they are a separate party who do not consider themselves part of the Federal party, as they have been happy to point out over the years.
Yes, thanks, I'm aware of that. I was referring more to his ideological bent than his party label, which means far less in Québec than elsewhere. Floor-crossing is a national sport here. My previous MP was sometime transport minister Jean Lapierre, who went from radio host to Liberal MP to Liberal cabinet minister to Bloc co-founder to Bloc MP to radio host to Liberal MP to Liberal cabinet minister to radio host - believe it or not.
I also once voted for Amir Khadir as Bloc candidate (he placed 2nd I think) - I now vote for his new party (Québec solidaire) provincially.
I stand with Libby Davies. She did nothing wrong, she said nothing wrong, she has nothing to apologize for, and no one, INCLUDING Israelis, stands to gain if Libby is punished, since the Occupation does nothing but endanger individual Israelis.
quite unncritical support for Israel is really broad in Canada, and Jews are just a small fraction of that.
That's not what the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bbcwspoll260410.pdf]latest BBC poll on global views[/url] (April 18, 2010) would indicate. It shows 23% of Canadians having a "mainly positive" view of Israel, while 38% are "mainly negative".
I'm not denying the impact of the nonstop media-cultural-political glorification of Israeli aggression and statehood. I just have difficulty when it's exaggerated. That can give grist to the mill of the unprincipled politicians who are trying to decide whether to kiss and make up, or throw under the bus.
Let's be clear. Layton and co. are not interested in their standing with ordinary people. They are interested in their standing with the elite and its intelligencia. Hence the fact that their positions often, on this and many other things, is actually formulated not on the basis of public opinion, but on the opinion of those they crave to schlep for... you know... "real" people.
And KenS, please spare me the lines about all the progressive Jews in Canada that support Israel - there are so many Jews WITHIN Israel that absolutely loathe what their government is doing in their name.
You mistake/overplay what I say. That Jews within Israel and here loathe what Israel does is not mutually exclusive with what I said: that there are a substantial number of progressives, Jews and non-Jews alike, who give very qualified but nonetheless significant, support for at least some of what Israel does or does not do.
That they would be a minority among progressives does not contradict my point. That kind of support is out there. And most of those progressives, who like I said would typically for example be strongly oppossed to intervention in Afghanistan, are not politicians and have no need whatsoever to pander to the strong diffuse support for Israel out there.
In some ways I don't get why this gets peoples backs up. Its not like we dont see plenty of evidence that degrees of support for Israel is a challenging flashpoint AMONG progressives. And it takes a thick skin to come here into that- there are many more who wouldnt think of running this gauntlet.
As to Unionist's BBC poll- the UK is a very different animal than North America. As to not wanting to overstate broad support out there for too many of Israel's actions [its a low bar to dissaprove of the attack on Gaza, let alone that said dissaproval is often blind to the ferocity and anti-human cynicism of Israel's actions there] lest that make politicians more likely to pander... I think people are being too blase about the effects that many of those progressive polticians arent just or even mostly pandering, they think that by a progressive's yardstick Israel deserves/needs their 'tempered' or 'moderated' stand.
Go ahead and write that off as 'the effects of ideology'. Which explains what about what we are supposed to do? I feel a need to be realistic about the depth of your challenges. Again, we are surrounded by evidence that among many progressives, Israel is some kind of 'special case'. And I think Jack Layton is one of many who is somewhere on a continuum of that, was before he became leader of the NDP, and expect will be after he is.
I don't think thats some huge defining obstacle. I just dont get what looks to me like people denying its there.
Just wanted to say a quick thing about Bob Rae. Only doing it here because the thread with his name in it got redirected to here...
I know Bob. I've known him most of my life. A few people have said that he's evil, or rotten to the core (or things to that effect). Personally, I think that what has happened to Bob is really sad. He isn't a terrible person. He's fiercely intelligent and quite kind and caring. I would never thought him capable of the kind of racism he's shown in his unflinching support for Israel. I think his downfall has been his ambition. I would hazard a guess that he's reached the conclusion that he won't be able to move upwards in Canadian politics without showing himself as a "friend" to Israel. He's on a path that is despicable. He's been blinded by his ambition. But I think he'll move beyond it. He's still got time ahead of him and I believe that he'll see the light.
Lot of politicians "see the light" once they retire. Take Lloyd Axeworthy, for example.
Jimmy Carter might be a better example on this particular thread and topic. Carter is now denounced by the Israeli apologists after a book or two and some rather bland, and obvious, observations on his part.
NDPP- there are so many Jews WITHIN Israel that absolutely loathe what their government is doing in their name.
I wish that were true but it isn't. The Zionist atrocities against Gaza were/are overwhelmingly supported according to all polls. Furthermore the only substantial internal criticism of the recent Flotilla raid is largely because it was considered 'poorly executed' not because Israelis didn't approve of the attack alas. As for supporting Libby Davies - this would be easier had she not in effect pled guilty afterwards and recanted. Her retraction and admission she was 'mistaken means her previous principled statements are now 'inoperative'.
@ N. Beltov
or Bill Clinton and Laura Bush saying they now support gay marriage.
I wouldn't call it outright hypocrisy (though I am sure in some cases it is), because people and times change, and public figures aren't always in a position to act on their own conscience,
It's nice to hear them say it, but it is still a bit galling when people make such declarations when they no longer have the political power to act on it, and no longer face any risk.
NDPP- there are so many Jews WITHIN Israel that absolutely loathe what their government is doing in their name.
I wish that were true but it isn't. The Zionist atrocities against Gaza were/are overwhelmingly supported according to all polls.
Could you provide a link to these polls?
This is big.
As in important.
I'm so glad to see babblers taking active measures in defending her from this slander, but this goes beyond the NDP to our right as citizens to speak out freely against state oppression (not just Israeli) and limit the political manipulation of these struggles for purely personal gain.
I've tried without success to send a note of support to Libby directly (her site doesn't seem to accepting anymore posts on the subject, for some reason) but will try again tomorrow on other venues. And I ask others to please do the same. Sending notes to the NDp caucus and leadership is an excellent start, but for any politician to show any backbone in this atmosphere the broader left will have to make their views known in media venues the broader mainstream looks to --like CBC, CTV, the Globe or any other site or station which allows public feedback. We'll be outnumbered by all the kneejerk bigots and party operatives, and very possibly censored, but with a few more hands on deck the truth has a chance to get through. Canadians are starting to lean in our direction on this, but might need a few more nudges in the right direction to undermine the phako-progressive's ability to blame John Q Public for their own moral cowardice.
If nothing else, do it for Libby, one the last openly leftwing politicians still standing in Ottawa.
She did nothing wrong, she said nothing wrong, she has nothing to apologize for, and no one, INCLUDING Israelis, stands to gain if Libby is punished, since the Occupation does nothing but endanger individual Israelis.
Libby's response to inflamatory editorial
My reference to the year 1948 as the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory was a serious and completely inadvertent error; I apologize for this and regret any confusion it has caused.
Stop NDP-Israeli apartheid now!! Free Libby Davies!
If Irene Mathyssen can survive 'Laptop-gate', Libby can certainly survive this!
I would do the same, Unionist, with the caveat that the other person I voted for would be more progressive on the Middle East file - it's not clear to me that even the BQ is resisting the massive pro-Israel hysteria rampant on the Canadian political scene.
The Bloc is very inconsistent on issues outside Québec. One reason I voted for Mulcair was his seemingly strong stand on Afghanistan and the environment. But no other party has had the decency to do this:
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/bloc-qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois-pulls... québécois pulls out of Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to "Combat" Antisemitism[/url]
... and Mulcair in particular never responded to my appeals to him on this issue.
As to Unionist's BBC poll- the UK is a very different animal than North America.
Ken, if you really want to comment on the poll, try clicking on [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bbcwspoll260410.pdf]the link[/url] which I provided. The poll is about countries all around the world, and the results I cited were about Canada, not the UK.
Again, we are surrounded by evidence that among many progressives, Israel is some kind of 'special case'.
Obviously you know some people like this - or are you one yourself? That could colour your perception. I think the movement has evolved dramatically in recent years, and you may not have noticed. Would you have believed the massive rejection of Pride Toronto's attempt to bar "Israeli apartheid" messaging? Or the extent to which progressive Jews (Naomi Klein, Judy Rebick, etc.) have the spotlight in condemning not only Israel's crimes, but more particularly Canadian government complicity?
Things have changed, and we should look forward.
A day away from the news and babble and WOW - what a shitstorm over "nothing". I thought Davies interview comments, particularly around BDS, to be coherent, reasonable and responsible. However, since BDS is not NDP policy, it put Layton into a squirming position (although thankfully he did not suggest that BDS should not be debated). While I can understand why Layton may have felt compelled to do so, I think that he went too far in calling the Israeli ambassador to apologize. Unless he regularly makes similar calls to criticize Israel's actions against the Palestinians. e.g. the flotilla attacks.
I would hazard a guess that he's (Rae) reached the conclusion that he won't be able to move upwards in Canadian politics without showing himself as a "friend" to Israel.
I remember having discussions about Bob Rae with my grandfather who was staunchly pro-Israel no matter what they did (and we sparred very periodically about this in the 70s & 80s). He was also anything but an NDPer. However, he loved Bob Rae. Why? Because Bob Rae loved Israel. I think Rae "honestly" holds these beliefs, (no matter how much we may disagree), not unlike some in the NDP caucus. I don't think Rae's long standing political support for Israel can (or should) be reduced to either political opportunism OR hatred for his former family. To do so, as Libby points out very clearly. is to diminish the tenacious grip and insidious "ideological occupation" that Israel has over the debate in Canada.
I always find it quite interesting (ironic? amusing? blatantly partisan?) that some of the most vociferous Rae-haters are those who were the most vociferous Rae-lovers when he donned an orange jersey. Not pointing fingers at present company. Those people know who they are. The challenge, as Davies points out, is to open space to actually have the debate about BDS in Canadian politics (including within political parties). However, it's a straw-person argument to suggest that those who would like to see the NDP take a pro-BDS position are somehow blaming the troubles in the mid-east on the NDP.
Perhaps the NDP has already had the BDS debate in Convention and that strategy was debated and democratically rejected?
Just sent my letter of support to Davies.
U, why don't you round up a few union members (quite a few) and have them enrol as NDP members in your riding and make sure that Mulcair's re-nomination as candidate in the next election (if he's still an MP) is only the work of a central office overiding local NDP opinion? In fact, why not present yourself as candidate in opposition to him,now. That would not only present the riding with a representative of moral purity (and your own credentials are immaculate) but it would relieve the strain here on NDP babblers whose morale is diminished by your moral attack. Heck, you might even get some lineage out there among the average masses. Far more important then lines here.
You might even then begin to empathize with Libby for the load of regret she now carries into the next election. She will have to spend very valuable media opportunity time on defending her error (of course she is guilty only of an error in dates) instead of putting forward a strong case for the marginalized and dispossessed in her riding. You might understand the real world of politics then, but it wouldn't be as much fun as a nitpicking, incessant critique of a party that is as close to a meaningful public political party of the left as you are going to get.
You might understand the real world of politics then, but it wouldn't be as much fun as a nitpicking, incessant critique of a party that is as close to a meaningful public political party of the left as you are going to get.
I think Nancy Ruth said it a lot better in much fewer words, although at least she was trying to be helpful and to protect something worth protecting.
I think Rae "honestly" holds these beliefs, (no matter how much we may disagree), not unlike some in the NDP caucus. I don't think Rae's long standing political support for Israel can (or should) be reduced to either political opportunism OR hatred for his former family.
But the problem isn't just Rae's support for Israel. It's his insistence that an opposing point of view isn't just wrong but is so unacceptable that it requires Davies' resignation. The term "delegitimize" seems to be a favourite these days among those who promote uncritical support for Israel. It's they who are attempting to "delegitimize" anyone who doesn't fall in line with them. Joe McCarthy would be proud. Bob Rae should be ashamed.
You might understand the real world of politics then, but it wouldn't be as much fun as a nitpicking, incessant critique of a party that is as close to a meaningful public political party of the left as you are going to get.I think Nancy Ruth said it a lot better in much fewer words.
Right on, Pol2. And let me say a little bit more about what I [b]REALLY[/b] think, before my anger subsides and I can think clearly and calmly.
A female progressive queer activist politician, expressing concrete solidarity with the Palestinian people, is condescendingly lectured to and made to apologize by some privileged white poll-fearing political "leader", who has never made a mistake or said a risky thing in front of a camera in his life.
He should fucking apologize. And those on this board who attack (oh, sorry, who shake their heads in sympathy for) Libby for making a "mistake" and tell her to be "careful" in the future should do likewise.
"It repeats the kind of comments that were made by Helen Thomas on which she was forced to resign and the member of the NDP who said those should be forced to resign as well." Thomas was the veteran White House correspondent who resigned after saying Jews in Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else."
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/15/libby-davies-israel.html#ixzz0r1PMSicF
The equation with Thomas's comments is nothing short of despicable. Whatever Thomas precisely meant by her comments, even if Davies meant 1948, that did not mean in any way shape or form that Jews should "go back where they came from." But I'm sure Harper knows that, and is just demagoging the issue. As is his wont.
Not true, U. He spoke about homelessness, about death and the affects of Martin's economic policies. Unfortunately, rather than standing behind his statement and pushing it forward, he listened to the poll watchers, rather than his heart.
Good point POGGE. I agree.
Not true, U.
Yeah, I know, it wasn't literally true. I was (and am) angry and exaggerating. But standing by one's comrades is a pretty determinative quality. I'll see if Layton does so, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I've written to him as an ally, not a critic, urging him to do the right thing. But I remember what happened to Svend, and my heart is full.
ETA: Yeah, pogge, I agree as well. This has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinions. When I voted for Mulcair, in both his successful elections, I did so knowing full well (and saying so on this board) his pro-Israel sympathies. But his public stance was about Afghanistan, about the environment, and about the challenges facing people in our multi-faceted riding - and about his proven courage in standing up for his beliefs (some of the good ones) in the face of Jean Charest's dictate. But when, like Cheri DiNovo, or Carole James, he tries to suppress those who don't share his reactionary beliefs on Israel - that's where he wanders over into the enemy camp.
Yeah, comrades can become sensitive to attack.
Unionist, my connection/browser can't get that .pdf for the BBC poll, which is why I didnt read it [and figured it was about the UK, so what was i missing].
Do you have a link to the article at least, if not to another format for the data?
And it is possible my contact with progressive Jews and non-Jews opinions on matters pertaining to Israel has become somewhat narrow. Broad contact was my periodic sojourns in US cities, all at least 20 years old now. So I have only old friends from that, and even the ones I still talk to may have changed more than I realize since this isnt top of the list for occassional converstaions.
Those impressions formed are consistent with people I know in Nova Scotia now, but that also is possibly way too narrow. Mind you, for those of us who live out where 80% of North Americans live- be that Moose Jaw, Truro, Halton Hills, or the real sticks where I have lived most of my life- those of you who live in the big 3 Canadia cities and the activist life that goes with it have yourself in a bubble that distorts your ability to generalize from your experience. So it may be 6 of one, half dozen the other.
NDPPShe did nothing wrong, she said nothing wrong, she has nothing to apologize for, and no one, INCLUDING Israelis, stands to gain if Libby is punished, since the Occupation does nothing but endanger individual Israelis.
Libby's response to inflamatory editorial
My reference to the year 1948 as the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory was a serious and completely inadvertent error; I apologize for this and regret any confusion it has caused.
Her initial position was principled and correct. However, she then recanted and apologized. Her present position is neither and cannot therefore be defended. The facts are well known:
"In March 1948, Zionist forces launched a systematic plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous population. Heavily armed Zionist militias seized control of numerous multi-ethnic cities such as Jaffa, Haifa, Sefat and Tiberius and ruthlessly drove out Palestinian inhabitants. Massacres took place in Deir Yesin, where 100 men, women and children were killed, Tantura wehre 200 were murdered and in 368 other Palestinian villages and cities...
By the winter of 1948 90 pecent of the native population - some 750,000 Palestinians had been turned into refugees"
http://www.countercurrents.org/weiler040310.htm
Norman Finklestein has now posted the news on his website with the caption: 'How do you spell cowardice: C-A-N-A-D-A'
Unionist, my connection/browser can't get that .pdf for the BBC poll, which is why I didnt read it [and figured it was about the UK, so what was i missing].
Don't click it directly - try right-click, then "Save link as...", then download it and view it with Adobe Reader or some such utility.
Or, try this:
Or easiest of all (but you lose the neat formatting and bar charts), this:
Unfortunately, the main body of the article (http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/index.html) doesn't highlight the "attitudes to Israel" stats.
The negative attitude to Israel in Canada has dropped substantially in recent years (it was 52% in 2005, now down to 38%), reflecting (I think) very precisely the Harper years and the massive ideological onslaught. But it's still substantially higher than the "positive" views.
Her initial position was principled and correct. However, she then recanted and apologized. Her present position is neither and cannot therefore be defended.
For crissakes, NDPP, this isn't about defending her "position", or some paragraph, or her opinion. I don't agree with her first statement nor her revised statement forced on her by Layton. I probably don't agree with Finkelstein or you either on a lot of things.
[b][i]This is about defending Libby Davies[/i][/b] - a courageous activist being shit upon by so-called phoney progressives and being shut up for daring to speak her mind. You want to check her thoughts for political correctness before deciding to support her against this attack? Then you will end up being allied with Layton and Mulcair in shutting her up.
Her initial position was principled and correct. However, she then recanted and apologized. Her present position is neither and cannot therefore be defended.
For crissakes, NDPP, this isn't about defending her "position", or some paragraph, or her opinion. I don't agree with her first statement nor her revised statement forced on her by Layton. I probably don't agree with Finkelstein or you either on a lot of things.
[b][i]This is about defending Libby Davies[/i][/b] - a courageous activist being shit upon by so-called phoney progressives and being shut up for daring to speak her mind. You want to check her thoughts for political correctness before deciding to support her against this attack? Then you will end up being allied with Layton and Mulcair in shutting her up.
I know it has been mentioned already, but it's important to remember that most of what we see in front of the cameras (and question period in particular) is theatre. Not trying to imply that this situation is any less serious than it is (I know it is serious, and I am sure everyone in her party is weighing their decisions carefully) but I think the fact that she is still in the house and in the party is much more significant than anything that came out of anyone's mouth. A lot of that is stuff that people think they need to be SEEN saying.
It would be really unfortunate if they were just waiting for poll numbers to tell them what to do.
Harper's comparison with Thomas is ridiculous. There is a big difference between an elected representative stepping down and someone quitting her job at a newspaper.
And yes pogge, you make a very good point there at #88. It cuts both ways.
