Harper refuses to budge on support for Israel

[betsy]

If Harper was concerned about the polls, he would've waded carefully without giving an obvious approval for Israel! That's what the journalist were commenting...comparing him to the way the Liberals and NDP do the balancing act!

I have no problem with him taking a position. I do have problems with him doing a PR flight. As I said, he could have freed up the plane and headed home commercial. I would have had more respect for that.

Why should our leader have to head home via "commercial" when he is a likely target for terrorist acts?

Free his plane and scramble to come up with new security measures with this "commercial" flight (which is no doubt an obvious PR stunt more flawed and a excellent magnet for much worse criticism).....just so to give space to evacuees?

I see the headline now: PM RISKS ALL IN AN IRRESPONSIBLE BID TO LOOK GOOD.

One gripe will be from an evacuee who gained a space on his plane: "What? He doesn't want to ride home with us? Trying to distance from us? Didn't give us a chance to thank him well enough? He doesn't trust us?

He thinks we'll bomb dah plane?"

Bill Graham will say: "What a doh-head. You know how much money we wasted on that commercial flight? Money that could've gone to helping the evacuees?"

I think I prefer this so-called PR stunt that he pulled, thank you.

[jdobbin]

Why should our leader have to head home via "commercial" when he is a likely target for terrorist acts?

Free his plane and scramble to come up with new security measures with this "commercial" flight (which is no doubt an obvious PR stunt more flawed and a excellent magnet for much worse criticism).....just so to give space to evacuees?

I see the headline now: PM RISKS ALL IN AN IRRESPONSIBLE BID TO LOOK GOOD.

One gripe will be from an evacuee who gained a space on his plane: "What? He doesn't want to ride home with us? Trying to distance from us? Didn't give us a chance to thank him well enough? He doesn't trust us?

He thinks we'll bomb dah plane?"

Bill Graham will say: "What a doh-head. You know how much money we wasted on that commercial flight? Money that could've gone to helping the evacuees?"

I think I prefer this so-called PR stunt that he pulled, thank you.

The same headline could apply to sitting on the tarmac in Cyprus for 24 hours. It was embarrassing.

[Black Dog]

I don't buy it. First, he didn't swear "Unyielding support". He said they had the right to defend themselves, and that any nation on Earth would have done the same. Second, if the Arabs hadn't attacked Israel there never would have been a problem. Had they been willing to compromise even the slightest, there never would have been a problem. Had they displayed any of the interest in the well-being of the Palestinians they claimed they had, and let them become citizens in neighbouring countries, there wouldn't be a problem. It'sd NOT all the fault of the West.

Again: the question isn't about whether Israel has a right to defend itself, but how it opts to do so. Having that right does not give them carte blanche.

Second: given your own skepticism about allowing Lebanese-Canadians to return to this country, as well as your stance on immigration, it seems a litte inconsistent to expect the Arab states in the region to absorb the Palestinians into their populations. After all, Israel'ss defenders boast of how well Israeli Arabs have it: why is it not Israel's responsibility to take in those it displaced? And all parties involved bear a measure of responsiblity, but at its core, the whole thing is a western problem.

The Left were apologists for and deniers of Communist terror right through the cold war, and still spend very little effort worrying about what the Chinese or Cubans are doing to people. Noam Chomsky remains an apologist and genocide denier about Sbrenica, about the Killing Fields, and about Vietnam.

I acknowledge that some on the left supported some nasty regimes. But this was never a significant branch and certainly one cannot compare the Left's rhetorical support of those regimes with the right's material support of some that are just as bad. As for Chomsky, his views on the above have ben repeatedly misrepresented and decontexualized to create the impression he is an apologist for such crimes when the opposite is true.

First, not every action taken by Israel is "enthusiastically endorsed" by everyone. What we tend to do is put it into the context of a nation surrounded by hostile and violent neighbours filled with fanatics who keep attacking them. And, we also put it into the context of the actions and behaviour of those they are fighting. It's a little hard for us to get all worked up about the Israelis being mean to Hamas leaders, for example, given just what kind of people Hamas leaders are. And it's a little hard to feel a lot of sympathy for the "innocent" Palestinians when we read about suicide bomber playing cards, about how polls show overwhelming support for terrorism attacks against Israel, about how mothers sing and dance and celebrate when their sons are killed in suicide attacks. Yes, the Israelis have the tanks and the Palestinians have the rocks. But that doesn't make them right. They're the ones attacking. If a mob is coming at my checkpoint with stones and molotov cocktails is it really that unfair for me to shoot at them? And if I don't, what will happen to me? This?

Given the talk of context, it's odd that you would view Palestinian actions as though they were the product of some ethno-religious character flaw instead of looking at it from the context of decades of occupation and violence. For example, your lynch mob example omits the following context:

Anger had been brewing for the last two weeks which have witnessed the funerals of about 100 Arabs, nearly two dozen of them children, who have been killed in the violent uprising against Israeli occupation forces.

But this outburst of fury apparently stemmed from rumours circulating through the mob that the captives belonged to the feared and hated undercover units of the Israeli army which dress as Arabs and strike in the heart of Palestinian towns.

Earlier this week, the badly beaten body of a Palestinian, Issam Hamad, was found dumped on the outskirts of Ramallah. Palestinians blamed his death on Israeli settlers.

[Machinations]

I would suggest some remedial reading on history and what actual concentration camps look like. I'd also like to point out that the only walls around the occupied territories are walls keeping them from getting at Israel. The Israelis don't care if they leave and go somewhere else.

Um, BS? The Israelis dont want them - I would assume you dont want Canada to take them either. Where should we put them?

As to definitions of concentration camps - maybe you should look a little harder at the conditions in the Warsaw ghettos and how they parallel the experience of people in the West Bank and Gaza. I stand by my assertation. These are concentration camps.

Do you have a cite about how powerful the Israeli military is, General? Because so far you haven't struck me as having a great deal of insight or information to military affairs.

You'll notice I responded in your other thread, the one where you didnt bother to verify my easily checked fact. I offered you some links, so you can actually do some research for once. FYI, its true, and remains so.

When there are no rocks left to throw at tanks maybe the IDF will stop shooting bullets.

Wow. That's like, so deep. It's so unfair that the nasty Jews are in tanks and the poor little Palestinians don't have them. Clearly the Palestinians must be in the right!

If you can't rebut me, get sarcastic. So effective. Fact is, its still kids throwing stones vs. tanks. An unequal conflict, I suggest.

I don't recall the UN ever offering to deploy a peacekeeping force to the occupied territories, and I know it hasn't offered to send troops into southern Lebanon. Well, more troops. There are already troops there, in a failing mission, which they admit even on their website.

Thats because you don't read enough. If you did, you would find out that Israel has consistently opposed the deployment of a peacekeeping force in the occupied territories. Because the US has a veto, they have been successful.

Uh, because there are a lot of Muslim countries, and the ones with oil bribe the Africans and other pesthole countries who have no interest one way or another, to vote against Israel in one sanctimonious resolution after another?

Because of course any anti-Israeli UN resolution must be anti-Semetic, right? Also your logic here is curious, are you saying that Muslim and African nations deserve more censure than Israel, with its religious based discrimination and 38 year illegal occupation? Is this because they are Muslim or because of something they did? Please, clarify.

Well, I dunno, given we don't yet know the ethnicity of the Muslims arrested in Toronto.

Your snide comment belies the bigotry within. I am sure you take great interest in matters of 'ethnicity'.

[Danpearl]

I have been observing that a lot of countries are avoiding Israeli made products and the media is also not showing any favor to Israel in the current affairs. We understand that it is important to stand firm on our ground and support Israel. I was looking for a media to express my support and the one thing that came to my mind was a pro Israel t-shirt. When I searched the net, I came across this Israeli T-shirt site which does the job perfectly. The fact that it’s Israeli is also good as it streams money in to Israel.

http://www.israeli-t.com/Israel-t-shirts/Support-Israel-t-shirts/I-stand-with-Israel-T-Shirt-3129/

Come folks, let us strengthen the hands of Israel.

Danny

[naomiglover]

I have been observing that a lot of countries are avoiding Israeli made products and the media is also not showing any favor to Israel in the current affairs. We understand that it is important to stand firm on our ground and support Israel. I was looking for a media to express my support and the one thing that came to my mind was a pro Israel t-shirt. When I searched the net, I came across this Israeli T-shirt site which does the job perfectly. The fact that it’s Israeli is also good as it streams money in to Israel.

http://www.israeli-t.com/Israel-t-shirts/Support-Israel-t-shirts/I-stand-with-Israel-T-Shirt-3129/

Come folks, let us strengthen the hands of Israel.

Danny

Shame on you Danny.

Why don't you go post your ad on Craiglist?

[sharkman]

I have been observing that a lot of countries are avoiding Israeli made products and the media is also not showing any favor to Israel in the current affairs. We understand that it is important to stand firm on our ground and support Israel. I was looking for a media to express my support and the one thing that came to my mind was a pro Israel t-shirt. When I searched the net, I came across this Israeli T-shirt site which does the job perfectly. The fact that it’s Israeli is also good as it streams money in to Israel.

http://www.israeli-t.com/Israel-t-shirts/Support-Israel-t-shirts/I-stand-with-Israel-T-Shirt-3129/

Come folks, let us strengthen the hands of Israel.

Danny

Oddly enough, I have a tool tote on wheels, and I was surprised to find it's made in Israel. A good quality product, too. I don't know what kinds of products are made there, but I wouldn't hesitate, specially with some of the low quality throw away products that China is churning out.

NG, thank you for not starting yet another thread on Israel. I know it's probably not easy, but just start with baby steps!

Edited June 16, 2010 by sharkman

[jbg]

NG, thank you for not starting yet another thread on Israel. I know it's probably not easy, but just start with baby steps!

NG is probably the Board's best poster.

[sharkman]

NG is probably the Board's best poster.

You are talking about naomiglover?

[jbg]

NG is probably the Board's best poster.

You are talking about naomiglover?

Yes.

[thespeaker]

At the very least, I'll give Harper this: his foreign policy position on Israel is quite clear. Unfortunately, the conflict in Israel/Palestine is not black and white, despite what our current leaders want to believe. The Israeli government is not always good, threatened by "evil Palestinians", nor are Palestinian leaders the good guys, threatened by the "evil Zionists". Of course, we are willing to condemn Israel when the US does - though this condemnation is hardly equivalent to the condemnation it heaps upon the Palestinian leadership (and Hamas, though of course this is more justified).

Canada's stand on this conflict should be based in large part on the international consensus, which is generally that a two-state solution is required and should be (largely) based upon the 1967 borders. The problem with blindly supporting Israel is two-fold: 1) You alienate pretty most of the population in the Arab (and Persian) world. 2) Israel will be doomed to continue policies that make it less secure: witness the recent attacks on Lebanon (2006) and Gaza.

[dre]

At the very least, I'll give Harper this: his foreign policy position on Israel is quite clear. Unfortunately, the conflict in Israel/Palestine is not black and white, despite what our current leaders want to believe. The Israeli government is not always good, threatened by "evil Palestinians", nor are Palestinian leaders the good guys, threatened by the "evil Zionists". Of course, we are willing to condemn Israel when the US does - though this condemnation is hardly equivalent to the condemnation it heaps upon the Palestinian leadership (and Hamas, though of course this is more justified).

Canada's stand on this conflict should be based in large part on the international consensus, which is generally that a two-state solution is required and should be (largely) based upon the 1967 borders. The problem with blindly supporting Israel is two-fold: 1) You alienate pretty most of the population in the Arab (and Persian) world. 2) Israel will be doomed to continue policies that make it less secure: witness the recent attacks on Lebanon (2006) and Gaza.

The other thing is that when Harper makes statements to the international community he is respresenting Canadians, not just his own personal opinion. Most Canadians have a nuanced position and dont support EITHER side whole-heartedly.

[jbg]

At the very least, I'll give Harper this: his foreign policy position on Israel is quite clear. Unfortunately, the conflict in Israel/Palestine is not black and white, despite what our current leaders want to believe. The Israeli government is not always good, threatened by "evil Palestinians", nor are Palestinian leaders the good guys, threatened by the "evil Zionists". Of course, we are willing to condemn Israel when the US does - though this condemnation is hardly equivalent to the condemnation it heaps upon the Palestinian leadership (and Hamas, though of course this is more justified).

The problem with that facile analysis is that while there is plenty of evidence that Israel wants peace, there is no real evidence that the Arab side (other than the then-existing governments of Egypt and Jordan) want peace. There is utterly no discussion of what Palestine's economy would look like. The only discussion is of "security", i.e. how armed to the teeth a Palestine could be. Essentially what's under discussion is a Sudetenland-type appeasement of the Arabs. See below for more on that.

Canada's stand on this conflict should be based in large part on the international consensus, which is generally that a two-state solution is required and should be (largely) based upon the 1967 borders. The problem with blindly supporting Israel is two-fold: 1) You alienate pretty most of the population in the Arab (and Persian) world. 2) Israel will be doomed to continue policies that make it less secure: witness the recent attacks on Lebanon (2006) and Gaza.

The problem with a Sudetenland type appeasement is that it never works long-term. The Arab side is utterly unwilling to concede Israel's existence or legitimacy. The "international consensus" is based upon just wishing the violence to go away, much like a child expects mommy to make everything better. As for Israel being "doomed to continue policies that make it less secure" this is true only because international pressure forced Israel to fight with both hands tied behind their backs.

The Arab side doesn't spare Israeli civilians by the way they "fight"; why should Israel be any different? Why? Because the West, for some reason has recoiled in horror from actually winning a war since World War II. Some of this is because the U.S.S.R.'s propaganda, unsurprisingly, focused on the alleged horrors of nuclear war, since the nuclear option was logical only for the West and not for them. This way of thinking has been inculcated in Western universities and policy-making organs. Unfortunately, in the real as opposed to academic world not everything can or should be negotiated. The Arabs should experience the wrath of an unrestrained Israel. Then they'll figure out how to bargain productively and in good faith.

[bloodyminded]

The Arab side doesn't spare Israeli civilians by the way they "fight"; why should Israel be any different? Why? Because the West, for some reason has recoiled in horror from actually winning a war since World War II. Some of this is because the U.S.S.R.'s propaganda, unsurprisingly, focused on the alleged horrors of nuclear war, since the nuclear option was logical only for the West and not for them. This way of thinking has been inculcated in Western universities and policy-making organs. Unfortunately, in the real as opposed to academic world not everything can or should be negotiated. The Arabs should experience the wrath of an unrestrained Israel. Then they'll figure out how to bargain productively and in good faith.

U.S.S.R. propaganda was crude and ill-considered, and has had little lasting effect.

The masters of propaganda as we understand the term were the Americans and British, who self-consciously began using it circa WW1.

Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman were the great pioneers in what Bernays called "the engineering of consent."

It's essentially the "enlightened despotism" theory often attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the neocons. However, its use has not been restricted to these "neocon" fellows at all; rather, it has become a fully institutionalized component of democratic society, most noticeably through the media, who have to some extent internalized the propaganda.

Edited June 23, 2010 by bloodyminded