Canadians surveyed about Middle East

[The Terrible Sweal]

I found this article very interesting.

G&M story link

Neutrality on Mideast favoured, polls find

By JEFF SALLOT

Globe and Mail

Friday, November 12, 2004 - Page A15

OTTAWA -- Private polls conducted for Canadian Jewish groups show that many Canadians have a negative view of Israel and an overwhelming majority want the federal government to remain neutral in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

The poll results, coupled with a series of focus groups that demonstrated Canadian ambivalence toward Israel, helped shape the Jewish community's response yesterday to the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Rather than castigate Mr. Arafat as a terrorist, which was the first impulse of some Jewish leaders, the Canada-Israel Committee issued a low-key, simple statement that looked toward a possible peaceful future rather than dwelling on the violent past.

The polls found an overwhelming majority of 89 per cent "believe that both Israel and the Palestinians equally share responsibility for ongoing violence" in the conflict.

Much to the dismay of Jewish leaders, the polls suggest that many Canadians believe Israel has links to terrorist organizations.

Moreover, Canadians who say they are well-informed about the Middle East conflict also are more likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinians.

"The Palestinians are viewed as the underdogs, and Canadians traditionally identify with the underdog. We need to change this perception," the committee's communications advisers said.

About 60 per cent of poll respondents believed the Palestinian Authority has connections with terrorists.

However, the summary says, "one of the most surprising findings of the research was that more than one-third of Canadians (36 per cent) believe that Israel has links to terrorist organizations."

The private polls were conducted at various times over the past 18 months for the Canada-Israel Committee to help devise a communications strategy to counter what many Jewish leaders believed was a media bias in favour of the Palestinians.

What the pollsters found, however, was a basic lack of sympathy for the Israeli cause among Canadians, and widespread ignorance of the fact that Israel is a democracy.

"Less than half of Canadians surveyed (42 per cent) said that Israel is a democratic state. Similarly, a large majority of Canadians do not believe that Israel has freedom of speech or freedom of religion," says a summary of the internal polling data made available to The Globe and Mail.

"Only 11 per cent said that the media is biased against Israel. More significantly, one-third of Canadians believe that the media is being unfair to the Palestinians," says the summary prepared by GPC International, communications advisers for the committee.

Shimon Fogel, the chief executive of the Canada-Israel Committee, said the poll results "are a reality check for my constituents."

Advocates for Israel have to show self-discipline in their public comments about the Palestinian cause "and don't just do what feels good," Mr. Fogel said.

The polls show an overwhelming majority of 83 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa should remain neutral in its approach to the Middle East conflict. Most respondents said they thought Ottawa was, in fact, neutral.

But 32 per cent said they felt federal policy was tilted toward Israel, and only 4 per cent believed policy favoured Palestinians.

[Neal.F.]

Typical post Trudeau canada: Hoping to find utopia in the mushy middle. Trudeau sissified the country, and few people are willing to publicly take a principled stand on anything. The only thing many canadians seem to believe in is that they must show the weasels of the world that they are agaisnt anything the americans do.

The new canada would probably have stayed neutral in the second world war (a Quebec appeasement attitude) "After all, who are we to judge tha Nazis? It's up to the germans to decide on their own goverment" would have been the mantra. or "The Poles brought it on themselves for refusing to use diplomacy and work out a deal giving the Germans what they wanted, ie the Polish Corridor and Danzig."

Israel has repelled attack after attack by Arab police states, and repugnant terrorists like Yasir Arafat and his PLO.

Canada should take the principled stand that until the Palis abandon terrorism and violence, and rescind their principle that Israel has no right to exist, they deserve nothing.

Let's see some good faith. I wonder how safe Canadian Jews must feel

[Chloe]

I think you make a very good point

[Guest eureka]

I don't think you make a point at all. You babble anti-Muslim nonsense.

The whole of the West supported Israel when it was attacked by Aeab states. It does not, nor should it now when Israel is using the strength given to it by the West to subjugate the Palestinian population and to annex its territory.

[Cartman]

Trudeau sissified the country, and few people are willing to publicly take a principled stand on anything.

This coming from someone who is leaving Canada because taxes are too high?

Now that Bush has been re-elected, the idea of going stateside is tempting.

What is being taken from us is in large part wasted, or mismanaged.

[maplesyrup]

It is very important for Canada to remain strictly neutral, and only support those that are working towards peace concerning the conflict in the Middle East. I did not see that from neither Sharon nor Arafat. I would like to see a change of leadership on both sides, which will create a better opportunity for peace.

[Guest eureka]

You also seem to have a poor understanding of WWII and why we fought. And, you have a very limited idea of Canada and Canadians. In fact, oyur prejudices seem to limit your understanding of everything.

[Stoker]

It is very important for Canada to remain strictly neutral,

Translation, sit on the fence, allow more innocent Israelis and Palistinens to die, cast stones at those that are trying to do something (United States), well being sure not too get our hands dirty.

and only support those that are working towards peace concerning the conflict in the Middle East.

Who's that?

I did not see that from neither Sharon nor Arafat. I would like to see a change of leadership on both sides, which will create a better opportunity for peace.

So you would like to change the leadership of a democratic country?

You also seem to have a poor understanding of WWII and why we fought.

Why did we fight? And couldn't those reasons be also applied to fighting in Iraq/Sudan/Any other shithole?

And, you have a very limited idea of Canada and Canadians.

I think he depicts a perfect contrast between Canada then and Canada today. I too believe that the "split" in Canada of yesterday and today happend after Pearson.

[Stoker]

Here's a long, but very well thought out paper on Canadian (or lack there of) forgeign policy.

Romanticism and Realism

[caesar]

Translation, sit on the fence, allow more innocent Israelis and Palistinens to die, cast stones at those that are trying to do something (United States), well being sure not too get our hands dirty.

No it means not condoning the illegal actions of EITHER side. We Canadians should not support any government or organization that knowingly kills civillians, women and especially children. Israel is as guilty and with a much higher head count than the Palestinians. Israel has a country to call home; allow the Palestinians to have a home and country to call their own. It means not supporting human right violations by any country or organziation. We should not support any side just because the look or act more like us.

[Guest eureka]

No, it could not be applies to Iraq or Sudan. Unless, in the case of Iraq you would like a group of democratic nations to go to war with the USA.

The CD Howe Institute does prepare long papers but not well thought out ones. Gotlieb has been shooting his mouth off recently in the cause of aggression and international chos. As for why we fought the Nazis, ask a veteran.

[August1991]

My first instinct reading the G&M article (thanks TS) was to think: the further away something is, the less people know about it.

IOW, Canadians are simply giving their honest opinion about something faraway that doesn't concern them: "be neutral".

In addition, I thought Canadians are behaving as any small guy looking at the start of barroom brawl. Don't take sides until you know who is going to win. Once again: "Be neutral."

Then I read Gottlieb's speech (thanks Stoker for the link) and I thought again.

Then I considered Neal's comment:

Typical post Trudeau canada: Hoping to find utopia in the mushy middle. Trudeau sissified the country, and few people are willing to publicly take a principled stand on anything.

[side Note: Trudeau hasn't been PM for 20 years. At one point, will people stop blaming him?]

----

Americans (both South and North) are largely isolationists. When was the last time anyone heard a major peace Middle East initiative starting in Uruguay? What is Chile's position on Israel?

In the same sense, the US is also isolationist - or at least, it was up to WW II.

English Canada is the exception in the New World. They went to war in 1914 and 1939. Young Canadian men - one generation away from King and Country - were transplanted Brits.

Pearson was certainly of this style.

In the past 30 years or so, Quebecers have taken a more preponderant place in Canadian politics. (Before 1965, they were lucky to get a job as a driver in Ottawa.)

Quebecers are typical "Americans", or New Worlders. They are as isolationist as Mexicans.

Unlike Australia, the UK, the Dutch, Canada is not part of the "Coalition of the Willing". This was Chretien's personal decision and it was approved by a tremendous majority of French-Canadians. In fact, many will say that this decision alone changed partly their opinion of Chretien.

I have often wondered what the foreign policy of an independant Quebec would be. I'd suspect Sweden and Mexico in French.

[maplesyrup]

If I remember correctly, it was the lack of working via the United Nations, not wanting to get involved in an illegal war, that pushed Canada away from getting involved in the US Iraq war.

And it has turned out to be one of the best decisions we have ever made in Foreign Policy.

Now watch while PM Martin blows Canada's credibility out of the water.

[Stoker]

No, it could not be applies to Iraq or Sudan. Unless, in the case of Iraq you would like a group of democratic nations to go to war with the USA.

Say that again?

We have on one hand, a country led by a dictator (Saddam) that has before threatend world stablitiy (Not to the same extent as Hitler granted) and in the other, a group of Allies led by the United States and the United Kingdom.

With the end result being, like Germany and Japan, a (soon to be) democratic Iraq and Afghanistain.

The CD Howe Institute does prepare long papers but not well thought out ones.

What part, in your opinion, of this paper was not well thought out?

Gotlieb has been shooting his mouth off recently in the cause of aggression and international chos.

Thats if "aggression and international chos" are in ones self intrest and action is taken, as opposed to a stance based on so called "moral superiority" in which a whole lot of nothing takes place.

For a "peacekeeping nation" such as ours, when was the last time a peace treaty was named after a Canadian city?

As for why we fought the Nazis, ask a veteran.

I have, and I understand the reason, that doesn't change the fact that I'd like to know your reasons for thinking it right to fight for one cause and not the other?

eureka, why did we fight the Nazis? And why are we not fighting the Bath(sp?) party?

[caesar]

We have on one hand, a country led by a dictator (Saddam) that has before threatend world stablitiy

Oh when was this?????

With the end result being, like Germany and Japan, a (soon to be) democratic Iraq and Afghanistain.

Hmm doesn't look very likely to me that this will happen. Sounds like a big messy killing fields to me

[Guest eureka]

Stoker, we fought the Nazis because they were bad boys and bullies. We fought them because they had embarked on a war of conquest. We fought them because they were a real threat to ourselves and to international order.

We did not fight them to initiate "Regime change." We did not fight them because they offended Churchill's father. We did not fight them to gain control of their coal mines.

[Stoker]

Oh when was this?????

August of 1990.

Hmm doesn't look very likely to me that this will happen. Sounds like a big messy killing fields to me

The elections already happend in Afghanistain, and are still planned for janurary for Iraq.

Stoker, we fought the Nazis because they were bad boys and bullies.

Saddam wasn't?

We fought them because they had embarked on a war of conquest.

The Kuwait invasion wasn't a war of conquest?

We fought them because they were a real threat to ourselves and to international order.

Iraqi control of middle eastern oil wouldn't threaten the world economy?

We did not fight them to initiate "Regime change."

So you would have been fine with the Allies stopping at the German boarders and allowing Hitler to remain in power? I wonder what the veterans would think about that?

We did not fight them because they offended Churchill's father.

Has there been any case/proof ot suggest that "W" went to war to defend the honor of Daddy?

We did not fight them to gain control of their coal mines.

Thats good, just like Germany, Iraqis too have control of their number one resource.

[caesar]

The Kuwait invasion wasn't a war of conquest?

That was how many years ago??? There are many credible sources that claim the whole incident was engineered by the USA. Telling Kuwait to take more of the joint oil; and telling Saddam that they would not interfere: "it is an Arab situation"

[caesar]

Thats good, just like Germany, Iraqis too have control of their number one resource.

Not anymore, they don't. Bush has taken care of that.

[Stoker]

That was how many years ago???

2004 - 1990 = **?

There are many credible sources that claim the whole incident was engineered by the USA.

Bullshit......I haven't even heard of non-credible sources stsaing that When wearing your tin-foil hat, make sure the shiny side is facing out......deflects the American mind control beams better

Telling Kuwait to take more of the joint oil;

What "joint oil"?

and telling Saddam that they would not interfere: "it is an Arab situation"

And I heard that the moon landings were faked and that the hat makers guild had Kennedy shot

[caesar]

Iraqi control of middle eastern oil wouldn't threaten the world economy?

Hmmm Alberta controls most of Canadas oil; I guess they are threatening our economy,too.

It is Iraqi oil to do with as they please. At least it used to be.

The invasion of Kuwait was 14 years ago and a peace was signed. Over and done.

[caesar]

Bullshit......I haven't even heard of non-credible sources stsaing that  When wearing your tin-foil hat, make sure the shiny side is facing out......deflects the American mind control beams better

Ramsey Clarke former attorney general for Linden Johnson and former assistant attorney general for JFK

You should read more. This is not a big secret. RC is not the only credible source that says this.

[Stoker]

Hmmm Alberta controls most of Canadas oil; I guess they are threatening our economy,too.

How so?

It is Iraqi oil to do with as they please. At least it used to be.

It was never the Iraqi people's oil....it was Saddam oil......now it is the Iraqi people's oil......more so once they elect their government in a couple of months.

The invasion of Kuwait was 14 years ago and a peace was signed. Over and done.

When was it signed? Why was their a UN presence in and around Iraq until the American led war?

Ramsey Clarke former attorney general for Linden Johnson and former assistant attorney general for JFK

You should read more. This is not a big secret. RC is not the only credible source that says this.

O-K Do you beleive in Martians and Bigfoot also?

[Boondoggle]

Translation, sit on the fence

Canada isn't sitting on the fence. Here's an example of the government's position:

Occupied Territories

Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip) and opposes all unilateral actions intended to predetermine the outcome of negotiations, including the establishment of settlements in the territories and unilateral moves to annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Canada considers such actions to be contrary to international law and unproductive for the peace process.

Seems pretty clear to me. You can read the rest here:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/c...asp#top_of_page

It's not a matter of Israel having terrorist links, but they are involved in state terrorism.

There are many reasons to criticise the Israeli government, but here are two recent examples:

1) Israel is building its wall in occupied territory and fragmenting communities. When this issue was brought to the Security Council, the US alone blocked it. It then went to the World Court, but that doesn't matter because Israel refuses to recognize it.

2) Mordechai Vanunu blew the whistle on Israel's secret nuclear weapons program, but the only thing that happened was that he was kidnapped, dragged back to Israel, and locked up for 18 years. He was released earlier this year, but was arrested again. It seems the nuclear hypocrites weren't happy with destroying 18 years of his life for doing the right thing.

Meanwhile, Iraq has been devastated with war and sanctions and never developed a nuclear weapon. Granted there were resolutions, but israel would be in violation of far more resolutions if not for the US. Ironically, Bush said in a speech at the UN that it should either enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant.

[Boondoggle]

It was never the Iraqi people's oil....it was Saddam oil......now it is the Iraqi people's oil......more so once they elect their government in a couple of months.

First, Iraq didn't start with Saddam, and you may be surprised to know that Saddam actually spent billions of the oil money on Iraqi's throughout the 70s and 80s. Iraq actually had pretty good living standards before war and sanctions.

Second, if the oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and I agree, please explain this:

"A House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday broadened its investigation of Iraq's oil-for-food program to include the Bush administration's handling of the country's oil money. The decision to subpoena documents from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York marks a major shift in the Government Reform subcommittee's investigation, which until this point had focused on corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq during Saddam's regime."

"The decision means the subcommittee also will scrutinize the activities of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004. A recent internal audit of the CPA by its inspector general concluded that the authority couldn't account for $8.8 billion in oil revenues that belonged to the Iraqi people."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanct...004/1005cpa.htm

As for a new government, that's going to be a problem. The Sunnis usually hold power (Saddam is Sunni) but they are a minority, and so if democracy is the goal, they'll have to give up some control, which they won't like. The Kurds have been fighting for their own state for a long time (a Kurdish state would cause serious problems with Turkey), and given the past, won't want to allow Sunni control of the north. The Shia at 60% of Iraq's population make up the majority, but share the same theology and ideology as Iran. The US government has stated that it won't allow Iraq to be like Iran. As we all know, democracy is rule by majority, and thus they basically stated that they will not allow Iraq to be a democracy. Therefore, you have three groups with conflicting interests, and a country that can't rule by majority. Something tells me that it'll either be a puppet government that Iraqis will resist, or it'll be more than a couple months.

When was it signed? Why was their a UN presence in and around Iraq until the American led war?

Resolution 678 authorized Desert Storm, and resolution 687 ended it. Resolution 687 was passed on April 3, 1991. You can read UN Security Council resolutions here:

http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

If you are refering to the UN weapon inspectors, they went in after Desert Storm as a condition of resolution 687 to disarm. However, the US used the inspections to spy on Saddam, and then used the information for targets in operation Desert Fox. The UN inspectors were ordered out so that they could begin operation Desert Fox -- not kicked out by Saddam -- and they weren't allowed to return. As a result, four years past without inspections. Just before the second war, inspectors were allowed to return, but weren't given enough time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,208440,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,309143,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...aq/analysis.htm