Thomas Mulcair's support for Israel 2

 Brian's response in the star is good, very good, to the issue of Isreal.

Tom's was better and far more detailed.

Thomas Mulcair for the win.

Mulcair's statement says Palestinians can only have a state, and can only end the illegal occupation, if Israel agrees. That is, through "negotiations". Israel has its own state. It never negotiated it with anyone. Israel occupies territories illegally since 1967, through aggressive war, not negotiations. Mulcair doesn't accept international law, which says refugees have the right to return. In every single point, he cites Obama, who has promised to veto Palestine's bid for statehood should the question come before the Security Council.

Is this different from "NDP policy", whatever the hell that term may mean? Is it different from the position of other candidates? I don't really know. What I do know is that it constitutes ardent support for Israel in all situations and in all circumstances, and a denial of the most fundamental principles of international law and the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. But we already knew this, because all this rhetoric of Mulcair's was already on the public record. I and others quoted it in previous threads. Nothing, unfortunately, has changed.

And with cheerleaders among supposedly progressive NDP supporters, such as those on this discussion board, why should Mulcair or the others change their pro-Israel stand? Palestinians can't vote. Screw them. Right?

ETA: By the way, nicky already kindly posted Mulcair's policy in full, [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-100-0#comment-1... days ago[/url]. We've been debating it in full since then. Mulcair's "new" message is the same line he has been peddling from the start - that permission for Palestinian rights must come from Israel - not their own struggle, not the United Nations.

Unionist wrote:

Mulcair's statement says Palestinians can only have a state, and can only end the illegal occupation, if Israel agrees. That is, through "negotiations". Israel has its own state. It never negotiated it with anyone. Israel occupies territories illegally since 1967, through aggressive war, not negotiations. Mulcair doesn't accept international law, which says refugees have the right to return. In every single point, he cites Obama, who has promised to veto Palestine's bid for statehood should the question come before the Security Council.

Is this different from "NDP policy", whatever the hell that term may mean? Is it different from the position of other candidates? I don't really know. What I do know is that it constitutes ardent support for Israel in all situations and in all circumstances, and a denial of the most fundamental principles of international law and the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. But we already knew this, because all this rhetoric of Mulcair's was already on the public record. I and others quoted it in previous threads. Nothing, unfortunately, has changed.

And with cheerleaders among aupposedly progressive NDP supporters, such as those on this discussion board, why should Mulcair or the others change their pro-Israel stand? Palestinians can't vote. Screw them. Right?

ETA: By the way, nicky already kindly posted Mulcair's policy in full, [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-100-0#comment-1... days ago[/url]. We've been debating it in full since then. Mulcair's "new" message is the same line he has been peddling from the start - that permission for Palestinian rights must come from Israel - not their own struggle, not the United Nations.

Its called practical reality, Canada could recognize Palestian till its blue in face, if Isreal does not, then it has no practical effect. Its a feel good fantasy not grounded in reality.

After all the blood shed, tears, and border issues, possible land swaps, and the Gods know what else to deal with, all practical issues resolved by negiotation.

Even if Isreal recognized a Palestian state, Negiotations would be needed because every divorce needs one, its how you figure out who gets the dog, the cat, and Barry White Albums.

And most of all it provides closesure for everyone and doesn't leave lose ends. A far more pyschological sound approach and one that will last.

I just don't get what you think recognatizing Palastian without Isreal achieves, because Isreal just flips you the bird gets more defensive and none of the practical issues get addressed.

I honestly don't believe independance without Isreal will achieve reconcilation, which is needed for lasting peace.

At great risk, let me enter the fray.

First off, I blame the Romans.  Really, what have the Romans ever given us...

Negotiations are, ulltimately, the only way that this will be decided.  Both sides (feel free to pick your greater transgressor as you see fit) have found it convenient to play for time - and by "play" I mean engage in violence - overt, covert, implied - to gall the other side, agravate the situation, disturb progress, undermine the "doves" on their own side and embolden the "hawks" on the other.  The suffering, again on both sides (and again feel free to pick your more wounded victem) has made it all but impossible to see a way out.  That there are lights, on both sides, who still struggle to end this through peaceful means is a credit to them all.  Blessed are the peacemakers indeed.

If both sides of this dispute, here and there, feel that establishing their status as "more wronged" is a precondition to negotiations then we can pick this discussion up in another generation after a new round or twenty of incidents, provocations and calamities.

I am a lawyer and I work in family law.  Divorces, custody and access fights, etc.  As with most divorces, the outline of the eventual resolution is understood by almost everyone in the room long before the two former spouses understand how it is all going to end. We have known for some time now what the outcome will look like and it is as stated above.  It really doesn't matter (save for the waste of time, money, misery and wasted lives) that one side is more culpable than the other or that the last attempt at peace was scuttled by one side or the other.  Eventually they will get there.

Mulcair's statement from 2008,"in all situations and in all circumstances", seems to be contradicted by his more recent, and more detailed, repudiation of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank being a violation of 4th Geneva Convention.  I actually would take the position, myself here - not speaking for anyone else - that condemning the settlements is in fact very supportive of Israeli interests, even if those interests are not acknowledged as such by the current Israeli government.  Indeed the strongest proponents for a two-state solution should be the Israelis themselves - if only because the alternative threatens the fundamental character of Israel iteslf.

Unionist, for the sake of arguement can you tell me the borders of the Palestinian state that we should recognize?  Is its capital in Ramalah, with Fatah, Gaza City, with Hamas, or Jerusalem, with Bibby?  

I'm not criticizing the effort to go for a unilateral declaration, it is an excellent negotiating tactic by a rather weak player in the game to make the UN pitch - and it has had marked success, particularly in fostering a potential raprochement between Hamas and Fatah.  In the end, however, the resolution will require both sides (and all sides of those two sides) to accept the legitimacy of the other's status.  It is the only way.  Certainly it is the only way that has any prospect of a lasting resolution and in this the relative Palestinian "weakness" is a strength - they have as much say in whether the agreement comes to pass as the much more powerful Israeli side.  Politics, and history, are complicated at the best of times.  In the Middle-East there is a magnification of that complication many fold.  If Mulcair, or any of the candidates (or any of us here) have stumbled in trying to piece the path of angels together here we are in good company.  Is the above stated goal contrary to what you would advocate or just the percieved means to reach that goal?

What's the path to Palestinean statehood without both Israel and Palestine agreeing on it?

Even ignoring that it wouldn't be the path to statehood that the NDP supports, is there any other realistic way that this could happen?

Steve_Shutt wrote:

Mulcair's statement from 2008, "in all situations and in all circumstances", seems to be contradicted by his more recent, and more detailed, repudiation of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank being a violation of 4th Geneva Convention.  I actually would take the position, myself here - not speaking for anyone else - that condemning the settlements is in fact very supportive of Israeli interests...

The contradiction is only apparent and formal. And you hit it at the end there. Israel knows that it cannot get unqualified from all of 'friends of Israel'. So many of them publicly distance themselves from the massacre in Gaza, and commonly say that the degree of settlement is 'not helpful'. They are still helpful friends when they do what they can to undermine the development of 'excessive demands' on Israel.

Friends of Israel know that Mulcair's "in all situations and in all circumstances" does not require literaly parroting what comes out of Jerusalem.

KenS wrote:

I'm sorry, but there is WAY, WAY too much of the Israeli public who is beyond 'winning over hearts and minds'. What Israel needs, just to be reasonable, is the rug pulled out from it by the US... and now its even more steadfast friend Canada [who would have thunk the Americans could have been outdone, eh?].

Israelis need the riot act read to them. Its not something in the 'national psyche'. Its common to settler states.

The hearts and minds we need to win, is Canadians.

No its not, because Canadians don't get a say, Isreal does. That the practical reality. Is it fair, no, but in the middle east reality killed fairness and stole its wallet.

You guys imagine far more clout for Canada really has.

Okay,this is my last statement on,this issue,I,really mean it,this time.

[see below - past the posts of someone who doesn't want to discuss the issue]

After Canada reads Israel the riot act, will the magic words summon a unicorn that banishes the Israelis from occupied territory?

This sophistry is not only offensive, it's diversionary from the thread topic, and it's contrary to babble's anti-imperialist policy. But I think that's the kind of crap that's stirred up to the surface by this kill-or-be-killed NDP leadership race, where anything goes.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If there's another way to liberate Palestine, I want to know what it is.

No, I don't think you do.

Allies don't look for ways to liberate anyone. You must be thinking of the U.S. and NATO and David Cameron and Harper. They're always on the lookout for someone to liberate. We simple folk just sit back humbly and support people who are fighting to liberate themselves, no matter how great the difficulties they face and the odds against them.

So does Mulcair support the Palestinian statehood bid?  That's a more meaningful question than these vacuous "I support the two state solution/Obama"* type statements.  That's good enough to pass the NDP-correctness test.

But, that doesn't make it right, and ultimately it's a question of justice, not passing the minimum threshold in the NDP.  The question was specifically asked and discussed at the Concordia University debate. Ashton, Cullen, Nash, Singh and Topp all stated they supported it.  The Middle East usually doesn't come up in these debates, so it's unfortunate Mulcair wasn't there.

(* BTW the statehood bid is opposed by the White House). 

Unionist wrote:

No, I don't think you do.

Allies don't look for ways to liberate anyone. You must be thinking of the U.S. and NATO and David Cameron and Harper. They're always on the lookout for someone to liberate. We simple folk just sit back humbly and support people who are fighting to liberate themselves, no matter how great the difficulties they face and the odds against them.

Don't tell me what I want. I don't endorse imperialism masquerading as liberation, and I don't think that sitting back and being humble is helping the Palestinean cause either. The most effective thing that Canada can do is still to play the role of mediator. That means we have to hold our tongue on reading the riot act, but then, that probably means we can do without the "strong supporter" statements for either side.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

After Canada reads Israel the riot act, will the magic words summon a unicorn that banishes the Israelis from occupied territory?

One would hope that around here people would know that without 'support' from the US and Canada- little things like a military budget for example- Israel would be absolutely compelled to take an entirely different approach with the Palestinian. Having friends like 'us' is why such a small country can force its will and ignore international opinion.

That's a fair comment, Unionist.

To that point, I'd only say *all* the NDP candidates believe that Canada's role should be that of a mediator. Which, for better or for worse, means that both sides have to agree. Yes, all candidates believe that Israel will have to agree to a Palestinean state.

There might be a stronger contrast between the candidates on the issue of the UN bid.

UN Special Rapporteur Condemns Israel for De-Facto Annexation

http://www.icahd.org/?p=8177

"..Concluding a ten day visit to the region yesterday (Mon, Feb 20), UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Prof Richard Falk stated that 'the information I received paints a picture of increasing efforts by Israel to deny Palestinians their right of self-determination.

Ever increasing and expanding Israeli settlements; ever-increasing confiscation of Palestinian land; ever-increasing settler violence; and ever-increasing demolition of Palestinian homes and other measures to displace Palestinians, have the manifest effect of making self-determination a decreasingly realizable prospect for Palestinians.

The information inevitably leads to the conclusion that Israel is implementing a deliberate policy of forcing Palestinians out of their homes and off the land, in order to establish more illegal settlements, and to proceed with the de-facto annexation of the West Bank, if not altogether, at least in relation to its substantial part, is a process aggravated by a disproportionate allocation of water to the settlers. In this regard, the situation in certain parts of E Jerusalem and throughout the Jordan Valley and the West Bank, merit sustained and timely international attention and advocacy..."

Should the NDP as official opposition not be following the UN Rapporteur's guidance for 'sustained and timely international attention and advocacy? R2P the Palestinians? Will the Official Opposition raise these matters with Netanyahu or will they continue to support genocide?

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Unionist, here's the Concordia debate.  It starts at about 1:20:00 in the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUd64ez8x-A

(At least none of them say "we support Obama."  I would say all operate in the "2 state solution" framework but Mulcair is certainly more on the pro-Israel end of the NDP spectrum than the others.) 

Thanks for digging this up. Watching those five candidates supporting the bid with such reasonableness makes me proud. I do wish Mulcair were here so we could at least have him on record, if not in agreement. I'd be embarassed for the party if he were against it, which he may very well be.

KenS wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The most effective thing that Canada can do is still to play the role of mediator. That means we have to hold our tongue on reading the riot act, but then, that probably means we can do without the "strong supporter" statements for either side.

I think we cross-posted. Compare this to my previous post.

As long as Israel has friends like us, it goes after keeping everything permanently. Friends like us mean all they have to do is mouth words about negotiation and peace while they keep gobbling everything up and building more walls.

Mediate what?

Of course there have to be negotiations. But there cannot be negotiations as long as Israel makes them impossible and gets everything it wants anyway.

This is somewhat more reasonable. But I still disagree, especially after having watched the clip from the Concordia debate. Nathan Cullen summed it up best for me, that a restoration of international credibility on this issue is a restoration of balance. I'm radically committed to that balance, and I think most (if not) all the candidates take that approach. We have far more influence as a mediator that brings parties together, than as the dissenter that somehow changes world opinion. Mediation HAS to be a voluntary process, and if the mediator is seen as pressuring one side, they no longer have legitimacy.

KenS wrote:

Unlike Unionist, I'll concede a lot to political realities. So we do have to call for mediation.

Hi, Ken. I support mediation, as it happens. You must be thinking of someone else? What I oppose is the notion that Palestine can only come into being at a bargaining table with Israel.

But why are we having this debate about our views, when the issue in this thread is to determine Mulcair's position (and by extension, that of the other candidates)?

[That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer.]

To be clear, we've been discussing for some time things that have almost nothing to do with the positions of the NDP and the candidates.

That happens because people bring up what supposedly needs to hapen because of X and Y political realities.

"It's hard to find a country friendlier to Israel than Canada these days. Members, both of the coalition and the opposition are loyal friends to us, both with regard to their worldview and their estimation of the situation in everything relating to the Middle East. I got the impression of great support for Israel. Canada is so friendly that there was no need to convince or explain anything to anyone..."

Avigdor Liberman, CJN, July, 2009

Unionist, thanks for reading my post.

As for international law, a UDI is perfectly valid but like many international law questions there is more to it than what you do alone.  Others, including your neighbour - Israel - is going to be part of answering this question.  This is not because of my personal take on it (ironically whenever I wade into this I'm alternatively accused of being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel, depends on whose sensibilities my foolish effort to see both sides makes me so disrespectful of :-)

Is Palestine a state?  If they aren't they sure are close, but close may not be enough - at least just yet.

Permanent population?  Given.

Defined territory?  You (quite properly) propose the 1967 boundaries - a little bit of Egypt, Trans-Jordan (made less "Trans" by giving up one of the banks) and Syria (or not) - and that is fine.    The negotiation necessity here is that there is not effective capacity for the Palestinians to exercise sovereignty over that territory, it being occupied and all.  The illegal settlements notwithstanding (and they are no small matter at this point - and I include East Jerusalem in this catagory, fear not) - the legal situation is of an unconcluded war.  Wars are resolved, ultimately, through a negotiation.  If the defeated nations of that war are not parties to the negotiaton (which may well be the case here), certainly the more militarily successful party is at the table.

A government?  Well the PA/Hamas divide is a bit of a sticky wicket here.  There are two governments, which somewhat complicates the whole single Palestanian state issue.  To their credit both Fatah and Hamas have recognized that they need each other and need an accomodation but it will be as challenging a negotiation as the ultimate Israeli-Palestanian talks.  On the question of legitimacy, and law, you will recall that Fatah seized the governance of the PA after Hamas won the Palestinian election.  This is the party making the pitch for the UN bid.  While well justified on grounds of morality, legally this is a government that was NOT elected by the people they are preporting to represent.  Technicality to be sure but the whole "law" thing, even in the far more wishy-washy field of international law, would raise an eyebrow at that inconvenient fact.  Ironically the UN bid was seen as a way for Fatah to try and both undermine and prod Hamas back to the table (which it seems to have accomplished).

A capacity to conduct international relations?  This is where the UN bid comes into play for Canada - and for us in the NDP.  The recognition at the Security Council isn't going to occur - today - but there are a host of international bodies that the Palestinain representative can be elevated from observer to state.  I believe that there may well be merit to backing this course of action but I'm not sure that the Palestinian statehood bid of 2012 is as well founded as one in the 1990's might have been.  If you are not able to manage your own borders, conduct trade across your own borders or manage your own ports - even if this deplorable state of affairs is because you are essentially occupied - you are not a state.  Pointing out this reality does not make one an apologist for the occupying power - it actually is an absolute necessity if we are going to engage in a course of action that brings about a resolution.  How supportive will Canada be of a Scottish bid for international recognition if it is a murky legal mess following an inconclusive referendum?  The Basqe?  Idaho?  Would we expect the world to recognize an independent Quebec on a 50%+1 vote?  And if the Cree vote differently?  When you are in opposition you can safely make black and white calls?  When you are going to ask for the keys to the car you had better be sure that you know the rules of the road.

Now, I hope that one can be critical of Israeli conduct in the occupation (which I am) without necessarily believing that Palestine meets the test for statehood (which I have to say, however close they may be, they don't yet meet).  I would hope that one can point to the corruption of Fatah (which was cause of Hamas' election) and the "push them into the sea" rhetoric of Hamas as being legitimate problems that need to be addressed by the Palestinians without being accused of being an Likudnik.  I would hope that one can point to the endemic economic warfare and physical acts of war (from the petty to the humiliating to the shameless disregard for civilian life in "collective punishment" strikes into residential areas) being waged by Israeli security forces against Palestinian civilians under the guise of security without being labeled a friend of terrorists.  Insiting on negotiation between Israel and Palestine is NOT an empowerment of Israel (they are ALREADY empowered - the are the occupying power FFS!) it is an absolute necessity to make a lasting deal that works and that is an empowerment of Palestine.

You can choose to label all those holding positions that do not conform exactly to your own as equally repugnant, that is your perogative, but you will excuse me that I choose to see some daylight between them.  Perhaps the failing is mine but I tend to look for the gradations of grey in most human situations - particularly this one.  As to how this impacts my view of Mulcair, I do not see the villian you do.