Saipan Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 Minus being strong on arctic sovereignty, IMO Harper and the CPC rank quite poor on foreign affairs/policy: - eager to please the oil people OPEC Arabs? How much oil does Israel have? funding/lobbying his party Cancelled for every party now. No more funding. - dumped on Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. Why do we need to sit with some dictators? - Ramped up Canadian military involvement in the shitstorm that is Afghanistan That was Chretien. Remember WTC? May even have our guys killed some day in the future by the weapons/training we're supplying them. How many were called by Japanese and Germans? Quote
RNG Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 The UN is a total joke. China and Libya on the human rights committee? Get real. And all the corruption. Who with two bits of brain to rub together cares about the UN? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
eCitizen Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) That's been clarified on the news today. Apparently Harper and Netanyahu did talk....but no mention of that 1967 border. Besides, even if the issue came up between them....it's in Harper's nature to be pro-Israel. He did the very same thing in the Francophonie (?) summit during the Israel-Lebanon war. He demanded the recognition of Israeli victims (not just Lebanese), and that they be included in the paper (that the leaders were supposed to sign). That Harper demanded the border issue to be taken out of the communique was made because that's how he thinks it should be - nothing to do with any plea or pressure from Netanyahu. Well, it's been spun in any case. Given your previous posts and the spirit of the OP, you're unlikely to be as skeptical as the situation warrants. As you can see here, Ha'aretz is standing by its story... http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/thanks-canada-but-netanyahu-needs-obama-1.364882 As for your second point, I clearly said that were he to be really seeking balance, he would have worked for the inclusion of balancing statements that contributed momentum to the peace process. Instead he gave blind support to Netenyahu, whom even pro-Israel voices like Thomas Friedman have come to call an obstacle to peace. With respect to your toss-in that "it's in Harper's nature to be pro-Israel", I just rolled my eyes. The man represents a nation and not himself. But given that he is now compelling senior bureaucrats to use the expression "Harper government" in place of "Government of Canada", I suppose it would be in keeping with the cult of personality he appears to be seeking. Who knows, maybe some day I'll return to see you referring to him as "Dear Leader". I doubt it will do any good, but here is a comment piece in today's Independent by Robert Fisk concerning the current state of affairs in the Middle East... http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/who-cares-in-the-middle-east-what-obama-says-2290761.html Edited May 30, 2011 by eCitizen Quote
eCitizen Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 My use of the term "Pearson bureaucrats" referred to the building not the PM. Canada's foreign affairs ministry is in the Pearson bulding. Your comments about why you thought Baird was a good choice for Foreign Affairs was so bizarre I would never had credited you with knowing the name of the building. Quote
eCitizen Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) But legally-speaking, Hamas is considred a terrorist group, right? My question was why should Harper recognize Hamas by bringing it to the table (as the poster suggested)? "The poster" being me I suppose. The first time I saw you post this I thought it wasn't worth taking seriously. If one of the complaints so often made by the Israelis, the Americans, the British, and everybody else, is that Hamas must recognize Israel. By the way, there was an interesting moment at the talks which took place in Spain some time ago. One of the Arab participants held up a picture of an old British wanted poster featuring Itzhak Shamir. What was he wanted for? Terrorism. Edited May 30, 2011 by eCitizen Quote
eCitizen Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 In fora such as this, people start threads like this for many reasons... Some times they do it in the spirit of the old debating societies - "Be it proposed that...and for the yeas we have... and for the neys we have". Some times they are not particularly sophisticated and really do believe what they are saying. Some times they are simply interested in propagandizing the public space. I'll leave it to the individual members why this thread was started, but I've made my decision. Have a nice day. Quote
August1991 Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Posted May 30, 2011 Your comments about why you thought Baird was a good choice for Foreign Affairs was so bizarre I would never had credited you with knowing the name of the building. The bureaucracy at Foreign Affairs needs cleaning up.Some times they are not particularly sophisticated and really do believe what they are saying. ... not particularly sophisticated... ? I always thought that I was a hip sort of guy.I started the thread because I thought that Harper has gotten some basic foreign policy initiatives right. You seem to focus on the Israeli question but I take a larger view. Have a nice day.Was that a flounce? Or are you going to stick around for awhile? Quote
Scotty Posted May 30, 2011 Report Posted May 30, 2011 Are you sure there are no votes in it? There are many who would argue that Harper's stance on Israel has won him a lot of votes in North Toronto and the evangelical community. If I were thinking tactically, and only cared about votes, I would dump Israel and support the Arabs wholeheartedly. Who are evangelicals going to vote for? Jack Layton? Meanwhile, there are twice as many Muslims than Jews in Canada, and their community is growing rapidly. Further, they are a much more natural fit with a social conservative mindset which would certainly agree with the Tories' feelings on a whole host of social issues, whereas the Jewish community tends to be more naturally liberal. Harper's support of Israel is thus not done for tactical but principled reasons. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
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.