madmax Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) Two years ago, an American friend took me on a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Golan Heights over the Palestinian West Bank. He wanted to show me how vulnerable Israel was, how the Arabs only had to cross 11km of land to reach the sea and throw the Israelis into it. I got this message but I also came away with another one. When I looked down at the West Bank, at the settlements like Crusader forts occupying the high ground, at the Israeli security cordon along the Jordan river closing off the Palestinian lands from Jordan, I knew I was not looking down at a state or the beginnings of one, but at a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control.Ignatieff, 2002 Opps, wrong quote.... here is the New Micheal Ignatieff 2009. Pick the one that suits you best. International law defines “apartheid” as a crime against humanity. Labelling Israel as an “apartheid” state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself.Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity is not. IAW is part of a global campaign of proclamations, boycotts and calls for divestment, which originated in the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. Like “Durban I,” IAW singles out one state, its citizens and its supporters for condemnation and exclusion, and it targets institutions and individuals because of what and who they are — Israeli and Jewish. IAW goes beyond reasonable criticism into demonization. It leaves Jewish and Israeli students wary of expressing their opinions, for fear of intimidation. No Canadian should ever have to fear for their safety in a public space because of who they are or what they believe. All Canadians should condemn any attempt to intimidate anyone in the legitimate affirmation of their beliefs and identity. The Ontario wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees has joined the chorus of denunciations of Israel on our campuses. The CUPE Ontario resolution passed last week to boycott Israeli academics is an unacceptable violation of academic freedom. Apparently its ok for Ignatieff to use Apartheid to describe Israel, but no one else. Or Ignatieff needs to apologise to Israel for his 2002 comments. He made the same comparision of Israel to South Africa. Link Edited March 5, 2009 by madmax Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Apartism ! Is to take and seperate the dogs from the cats - or the pigs from the cows - To seperate the humans from the other humans is to deam one an animal and the other not. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Opps, wrong quote.... here is the New Micheal Ignatieff 2009. Pick the one that suits you best. Hmmm. I noticed that you didn't provide a link to the article where you drew your first quotes, because then we'd know that he wrote that piece as a journalist discussing the failure of the Powell Peace Mission. and if you google that you'll see many people agreed with him. The 2002 Report on the failure of the Powell Peace Mission. "Eighteen months of extremism on both sides ought to return everyone to the realities: that loveless coexistence and separation within two secure states is the only political future that does not involve the indefinite sacrifice of the young people on both sides in a mutually reinforcing death cult." He does not suggest that Israel itself is an apartheid state, but that their occupation of the West bank resembled one. His beliefs are the same today as they were in 2002. International law defines “apartheid” as a crime against humanity. Labelling Israel as an “apartheid” state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself (the state itself is pretty clear). Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity is not. I got that from reading both articles from start to finish. You didn't? He's criticizing the Union's efforts to question the legitimacy of the Jewish state, something he did not do in either piece. The Union is wrong. I said so the other day. They are only inciting hatred. Ignatieff recognizes the legitimacy of Palestine and Israel, but Gaza is an ongoing problem. It's OK to say that and it's OK to criticize Israel. You just can't question their right to be there. He's pretty clear. I'm actually quite impressed with his 2002 insights into the conflict and the fact that he has stuck to his guns and has not called criticism of Israel itself anti-semitism. What a brilliant man. Thanks for the link. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Holy cow! - what's going to happen now? The Jewish community votes liberal traditionally - with Ignatieff calling the situation in the holy land apartheid or resembling it - who will they vote for now in a federal election - Harper? Not one of theirs is interested in inlisting so little muslim girls can go to school - NDP perhaps? I doubt it - the Jewish community like socialism - but only in tight well connected assisting groups...Jeezzzz...I guess we all have lost the Jewish vote now...oh dear Quote
Progressive Tory Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) Holy cow! - what's going to happen now? The Jewish community votes liberal traditionally - with Ignatieff calling the situation in the holy land apartheid or resembling it - who will they vote for now in a federal election - Harper? Not one of theirs is interested in inlisting so little muslim girls can go to school - NDP perhaps? I doubt it - the Jewish community like socialism - but only in tight well connected assisting groups...Jeezzzz...I guess we all have lost the Jewish vote now...oh dear Ok. You didn't read the article either. He clearly says that the Jewish state is not an apartheid state as the Union suggests. He is defending it's legitmacy. He says it's one thing to criticize Israel's actions, but you cannot deny their right to exist. He is defending the Jewish people and the Jewish state because university students in Canada are being discriminated against, as a result of a campaign launched by the Union. All politicians should be doing the same thing. He won't lose Jewish votes because he's concerned about Jewish students. He said the same thing in 2002. He was a journalist and all newspapers of the day were covering the Powel Peace Mission and why it failed. He said then that Israel and Palestine were both legitimate states, just as he says today, but they were both handling the West Bank in the wrong way, resulting in far too many deaths on both sides. Despite Colin Powells' best efforts, he was unable to establish peace in the region, and seven years later they are no closer. Michael Ignatieff just doesn't want Canadian university students to suffer because of it. It's called diplomacy. Edited March 5, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Had the same problem...taking a Jewish orgainzation to court and then the Supreme Court - those in power are very protective of the Jews - even if it was clearly put out on paper that the Jews were behaving badly..I guess staying in office is important to Iggy and being eithical is secondary. If something is unethical it is the duty of the politican to say so even if it costs him his postion and career...If for instance there was a very powerful Muslim lobby in Canada - and some Muslim extremists blew up 10 thousand innocent civilians - I suspect that Ignateiff and most politicals would protect the poorly behaved also...so this is politics is it? - I don't approve. Quote
madmax Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Posted March 5, 2009 Hmmm. I noticed that you didn't provide a link to the article where you drew your first quotes, Only, because the link I pulled it from didn't come over, which sometimes happens when I pull links off of MLW as well.Both links came from the same page, but only one worked. He does not suggest that Israel itself is an apartheid state, but that their occupation of the West bank resembled one. His beliefs are the same today as they were in 2002.I got that from reading both articles from start to finish. You didn't? Thanks for the link. I know what he is saying. I am well versed in doublespeak as well as changing opinions. You are welcome for the link. Quote
waldo Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 I know what he is saying. I am well versed in doublespeak as well as changing opinions. In speaking to the adopted CUPE Ontario motion, Sid Ryan, President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario stated: “The resolution does not call for a boycott of individual Israeli academics or all Israeli academic institutions.” Notwithstanding that Point #2 of the adopted CUPE Ontario motion reads: 2. Encourage its member locals to hold public forums to discuss an academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions so, madmax… about that doublespeak you claim to be well versed in… what’s up with your brothers and sisters in CUPE Ontario – who, apparently, have gone rogue as CUPE national president Paul Moist issued a statement Monday saying the national union does not support the CUPE Ontario resolution: “The resolution does not represent CUPE National policy,” the statement said. “As a national union, we are governed by policy resolutions adopted at our national conventions.” Solidarity forev… err… Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 How well versed are you at the warpage of chronology and doing the classic polar reverse? Not going to get into cabalist mystic manuveurs here. Speaking of double speak - what does it mean when they say of a politican "I mis-spoke" - is that like mis-thought? Some are highly skilled at artifice and are highly entitled because of it - some advice for those infected by political correctness and morally neutral modernity - If there is a title and it has the word "service" at the end - beware...They serve themselves...real public servants are willing to lose all to gain all - most do not have the spheres to do that...Just thought I would toss that in before I left. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted March 7, 2009 Report Posted March 7, 2009 Had the same problem...taking a Jewish orgainzation to court and then the Supreme Court - those in power are very protective of the Jews - even if it was clearly put out on paper that the Jews were behaving badly..I guess staying in office is important to Iggy and being eithical is secondary. If something is unethical it is the duty of the politican to say so even if it costs him his postion and career...If for instance there was a very powerful Muslim lobby in Canada - and some Muslim extremists blew up 10 thousand innocent civilians - I suspect that Ignateiff and most politicals would protect the poorly behaved also...so this is politics is it? - I don't approve. Wow. Are you misguided here. From being overly protective of Jews to powerful Muslim lobbyist that would force any politician to turn their back on 10,000 dead civilians. I'm not sure where you're going with this. We were only discussing the fact that Jewish University students shouldn't be persecuted for Israel's military policies anymore than Arabs should be for Palestine's. It is reminiscent of the internment camps. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Moonbox Posted March 7, 2009 Report Posted March 7, 2009 Wow. Are you misguided here.From being overly protective of Jews to powerful Muslim lobbyist that would force any politician to turn their back on 10,000 dead civilians. I'm not sure where you're going with this. We were only discussing the fact that Jewish University students shouldn't be persecuted for Israel's military policies anymore than Arabs should be for Palestine's. It is reminiscent of the internment camps. To be honest I don't understand %50+ of Oleg Bach's rants. I can't even comment on his positions or argue with him because I flat out don't understand him. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
myata Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I'm still waiting to hear from Mr.Ignatieff anything that would indicate his personal position of principle, rather than a gradient leading to higher electability. So far, my count remains, pretty much, at zero. Compare: "Torture - no torture" "Iraq - no Iraq" "Apartheid - right to defend" "Coalition, but not necessarily" etc I've no idea how he's going to react to any potential new development, other than reading opinion polls of course. Are we going to see yet another of those "leaders", whose only claim is to stick to the power for as long as they possibly can? Does anybody care? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) I'm still waiting to hear from Mr.Ignatieff anything that would indicate his personal position of principle, rather than a gradient leading to higher electability. So far, my count remains, pretty much, at zero.Compare: "Torture - no torture" "Iraq - no Iraq" "Apartheid - right to defend" "Coalition, but not necessarily" etc I've no idea how he's going to react to any potential new development, other than reading opinion polls of course. Are we going to see yet another of those "leaders", whose only claim is to stick to the power for as long as they possibly can? Does anybody care? As to torture, read his book, not media spin. He clearly does not support it. Like many people, including Colin Powell and 98% of the media at the time, he supported the War in Iraq because he believed the president when he said there were WMD's. He also covered the War in Kurdistan as a Journalist, so knows how brutal Sadaam was. However, he admitted, as did about 98% of the media, that he was wrong. Apartheid, again very clear, and I don't know how he could be any clearer. Respects the right of both Israel and Palestine to exist, from the original story, which was his coverage of Powell Peace Mission. Nothing to do with recently asking that Jewish university students not be attacked for Israel's actions. The Jewish press applauded him for it. Coalition - never really liked the idea but signed the letter to show solidarity. His comments on the coalition were that he wasn't just going to turn down the budget and instantly become PM, but if Harper pulled anymore stunts, and he was asked to take over by the GG and honour the Coalition agreement, he would do it. 'There won't necessarily be a coalition but there will be a coalition if necessary. I get it. Again pretty clear. Edited March 10, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
M.Dancer Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 The Jewish press applauded him for it. How is that relevant? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 How is that relevant? It's only relevant because the original poster tried to claim that he had changed his position. He had not. If the Jewish-Canadians understand and accept his plea for sanity, then why should we try to imply that his remarks were somehow anti-semite or had a 'hidden meaning'. He understands the situation in Gaza because he spent time there covering the war as a journalist. The original quote was from a small section of a large report that appeared in the New York Times. If those who some assume should be offended, aren't, then why should we be? He was right to make his recent comments. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
myata Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 As to torture, read his book, not media spin. He clearly does not support it. No, I heard him personally professing about it on CBC radio (some years back, before his more recent political inroads). The only thing that I could make out from lofty considerations is that he doesn't unquestionnably oppose it. Like many people, including Colin Powell and 98% of the media at the time, he supported the War in Iraq because he believed the president when he said there were WMD's. OMG, blame the Bush, how novel and original! Has he been literate enough to read the inspection team reports? Or what lots of media or people, or representatives in UNSC who did not support the war, were saying (no, far less than 98%, unless in your own perception, or interpretation)? All I recall from the media I read (should I make a recommendation to our would be PM?) is that there was no evidence whatsoever of any WMD. Apartheid, again very clear, and I don't know how he could be any clearer. Respects the right of both Israel and Palestine to exist, from the original story, which was his coverage of Powell Peace Mission. Like the right to "defend itself" by killing a thousand of civilians (in the recent war in Lebanon, and more recent one, in Gaza)? Ignatieff seem to have learned the lesson to speak from both ends of his mouth, and keep everybody happy this way. To Palestinians, apartheid, to Israel - right to defend. Oh yeah, how's it going to work toward peace in the region. Bad question. Coalition - never really liked the idea but signed the letter to show solidarity. Right. What I'm not getting is what he is / will do because he thinks it the right thing, not because he "believes" somebody, "shows" something and so on. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.