As if they were the only ones who cared....

genstrike wrote:

Look, the Palestinian solidarity movement is one which many posters on babble are active in, or at least strongly sympathize with.  And being active in this movement means that we have a bit of a strong emotional attachment to it.  And I don't know if you noticed, but this movement is also facing some pretty severe attacks by the government - including certain NDP polticians like Mulcair, Pat Martin, Judy W-L, Cheri DiNovo, Christine Melnick, etc., and there are very few politicians willing to stick up for us.

Now, I have very little patience for people who insist that I have to support neo-McCarthyite twits who are trying to shut down a movement I'm involved with.  If we're going to pretend to be all one big happy family with the NDP as our friends in Parliament, then solidarity has to be a two-way street.  If someone has made some political calculation that they'll get more support by shitting on us than supporting us, then obviously they don't need our support.

Some of us actually do have a new world in our hearts, and are involved in the daily struggle to make that a reality.  And yes, that also means that some of us also find supporting oppression to be disgusting.  I don't think that's a bad thing, even though sometimes it means we have to go against the grain, or at the very least against people whose only concern is maximizing the number of orange ties in Ottawa.

I realize that the first two paragraphs are immediately 'inspired' by George's interventions. But you are in fact talking to many more people than George. Which is made explict in the third paragraph.

You and the others you annoit dont have proprietary rights to "actually having a new world in your heart," finding oppression disgusting, etc. And you have no right to impute that my political choices are "only concern[ed with] maximizing the number of orange ties in Ottawa."

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

It occurs to me that if an athropologist from say 500 years in the future dug this thread out of some sort of computer hard drive buried in the rubble of Toronto they would easily be able to understand why the left of the early 21rst century in Canada ate itself and left the field wide open for the right.

N.Beltov wrote:

I think you're making the mistaken assumption that everyone in this "debate" is on the "left".

Erik Redburn wrote:

And hasn't Layton himself supported this supposedly frightening regime, when it served his own short term purpose?  Or at least what he thought at the time.  And aren't most of you still talking eagerly about 'overtaking' the Liberals, regardless of whether it means Harper gets his majority?  Or why its impossible to do business with the other opposition parties?    

And really now, if this board is so far to the left of the 'average' Canadian then what does it matter if some here don't support the official NDP line on small considerations like the MiddleEast?

Only us straw people here.

For what its worth, I dont think the outlooks expressed are just directed at NDP partisans per se.

It is directed at anyone who does not meet the "high standards," but most of them are in the NDP.

And for the record, I'm not campaigning for the NDP. As I've said many times, to no apparent avial, I respect and understand that you cannot support the NDP. Secondly, if I cared to campaign here, you are all way beyond being lost causes as far as any effort to payoff is concerned.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

You care so little about what they think about the NDP that you start a thread on the topic?

As always on babble, people are entitled to interpret even what the topic is as they see fit.

I think I can safely chalk you up as one who sees the NDP and defending it as the topic.

My topic is the guardianship of correct thinking on Babble.

More on that topic of unity which you in particular often speak of, and clearly value. [My highlight.]

Unionist wrote:

Likewise, in the union movement, there are those who mouthe every "correct" principle and slogan - but at a crucial time, they take their stand with our enemies. At that moment, we stand united against them - "we" meaning those of us who vote Green and Conservative and Not At All and who are Catholic and Muslim and Jewish and who play the stock market and who are racists and sexists and God knows what else.

Because beggars can't be choosers. We can't afford to dictate purity of principles as the basis for any kind of real-life unity. But we sure can smell the dirty stench of an enemy or a traitor in the heat of battle.

Have you figured out what I'm talking about yet? No? Sorry about that.

I figure just fine. The problem is that you are fraught with fatal contradictions that shit on your desire for achieving unity.

From that desire you will from time to time start threads where you are looking for a common position. It is funny, but sad too, to watch you politely tut tutting when you think people are being too demanding about what can fit within this common position.

Sad, because you dont see the irony that the babblers you think are demanding too much, not being inclusive enough, are just doing the same thing you do much more often than they. Much more often, and FAR more forcefully.

You are the de facto chief spokesperson for the self appointed guardians of correct thinking central committee. And that absolutely trumps your laudable attempts to look for unity.

Continuing in that vein of unity, and what it is about... example of solidarity with Palestinians and their struggle.

Whenever Israel engages in its worst excesses, polls will show strong majorities dissaproving. But let alone what Harper, Kenney, and all are doing now... even at the best of times, there is no move in Canada ever to even symbolically clip the wings of Israeli power to subjugate Palestinians. Power for which Israel depends on support this side of the Atlantic.

Why is there never the slightest move to reign in Israel? Media, leaders of all the parties, the parties themselves. These are rightfully criticised or condemned.

But a fundamental reason for Israel's success here is how well it and its agents play the Canadian political and civil society spaces. They lobby and stroke their friends. And they lobby and stroke influential people regardless of whether the subjects provide or are interested in the unqualified support of Israel that is the overall and constant political goal.

Let alone the Mulcairs who don't need lobbying, I would suggest the Jack Layton would be one of those who is just who they have in mind. The lobbyists do not demand or even hope for some kind of purity from Jack Layton. In the bigger picture, seeing that the NDP stays where Jack placesit is good enough for Israel and its agents. And if it were prominently reported that Jack came out in strong language that it is profoundly undemocratic equating strong criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.... the domestic lobbysists would not panic. They would calmly work the back corridors to do what they can to keep things from shifting further still.

General point: the domestic agents of Israel surmount their serious and persistent PR problems in large part by politicking effectively among all the elites- not at all limiting themselves to bona fide friends and supporters.

Our strategy should not mirror that. It is neither 'appropriate' or necessary. But we completely ignore even doing what little we can to neutralize that strategy when and where we can. We do so at our peril, because the lock on elite opinion means we are the ones marginalized, not those who work on Israel's behalf.

Neutralizing is about driving wedges into elite opinion. That does not mean trying to win it over,  or even materialy sway it- which is what my statement would be reduced to if I did not anticipate and object in advance.

And working on Tom Mulcair would be a perfect example of driving wedges into Israel's support. Keep driving weges, and some of them will pay off. Tom Mulcair comes up because a babbler has the idea or taking a delegation to him. Despite his famous stubborness, and his pretty out there degree of explictly unqualified support for Israel as it is... that would be the kind of delegation that Mulcair would not refuse, and would have a unique opportunity.

Unionist wrote:

Who is treating you as an enemy? Name names. Of course you're a damned ally on this front. What is your problem?

I didnt say anyone is treating me like an enemy. In fact I said, not being treated as an enemy is not enough.

I also asked someone to show how for all my differnece in politics, politics indistingushable from you and others, how my politics are treated any differently than what is meted out to Tom Mulcair. No one has offered a differnce they see.

For what I DID say is happening I illustrated it with several examples.

So in the cases of what I quote in posts 1,2,4,5,6... I'm just being sensitive, eh?