Liberal contenders slam Harper for 'anti-Israeli' accusation

[betsy]

Well I don't think Harper's comments are baseless.

Politically Incorrect

The new anti-Semitism and the Liberals

by Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor, Canada Free Press

March 8, 2004

The "new" anti-Semitism is the expression of hostility against Jews by expressing that hostility not at the Jews themselves but at the State of Israel. Unlike the "old" anti-Semitism that came mainly from those on the right of the political spectrum, the "new" comes primarily from the left; the liberal elite who condescendingly speak it in the name of anti-racism and anti-colonization. This type of anti-Semitism is politically correct. When those that espouse these anti-Semitic sentiments are challenged, they defend themselves by saying that they are merely criticizing Israel, something they have every right to do, and not the Jewish people themselves.

Merely criticizing the government of Israel is, of course not anti-Semitic. Canadians have the right to be critical of Israel as they have the right to criticize any other country, including Canada. The anti-Semitic aspect of condemning Israel comes into play when that country is held to a much higher or different standard than other countries are. It occurs, for example, when people vigorously criticize Israel for erecting the security fence while remaining silent on the gross human rights violations of other countries that routinely engage in such things as slavery, use of child soldiers, torture and political repression.

There have been two recent incidents in the past few months involving members of the governing Liberals. The first occurred when there was a terrorist threat to El Al Airlines that caused one of its flights to divert from Pearson International in Toronto to Hamilton. The immediate response of the then Transport Minister, David Collenette, was to say that perhaps the status of El Al in Canada should be reconsidered. Collenette blamed the victim for the incident and if he had any concerns about terrorists hiding near Pearson with handheld surface-to-air missiles, he kept that to himself. Reconsidering "El Al’s position in Canada" could only mean restricting the airline’s rights in Canadian airspace. It’s hard to imagine that the former Minister would have made the same comments had the airline involved been French or British or American. Israel was being held to a different standard.

The second incident occurred on February 17 in a statement made in the House of Commons by Pat O’Brien, the Liberal MP from London-Fanshawe. O’Brien criticized the security fence that Israel is currently constructing. Adding that he was neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel, O’Brien said that the construction of the wall "reduces the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the status of concentration camps". The next day, Liberal Art Eggleton stated in the House that Pat O’Brien’s remarks about concentration camps "made a mockery of the Holocaust".

O’Brien, who carefully drafted the statement that he made, makes no apologies for his concentration camp remarks. He reiterated that there was nothing anti-Semitic in his remarks, despite the fact that his comments were hurtful to some Jews who had been in or who had had relatives in concentration camps. O’Brien argued that he had never used the word "Nazi" and that other countries have had concentration camps.

A few weeks before his statement, the CBC’s Don Cherry had said that NHL players who wore visors were mainly "Europeans and French guys". All hell broke loose when Cherry made his "anti-French" comments. When Cherry’s remarks were put to O’Brien, he just laughed and said that Cherry was a redneck but not a racist.

On the other hand, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women, Jean Augustine, refused to comment on the reference O’Brien made about concentration camps while stating that she is passionate about multiculturalism, equality and human rights. This silence has to be contrasted with her statement in response to Don Cherry’s comments when she said: "The government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society and disrespect for others", a remark that CFP columnist, Klaus Rohrich, correctly concluded could have been made by Hitler or Mussolini. Unlike Pat O’Brien who lacks his party’s trademark political correctness, Augustine applied a double standard to the remarks made by O’Brien and Cherry. The government of tolerance will not tolerate comments from Don Cherry that might insult a few French-Canadians while O’Brien’s comments that insulted a few Jewish Canadians, who are in no way responsible for the policies and practices of the Israeli government, are simply not worthy of comment.

As far as the Canadian government is concerned, Jews, much like Americans, are not accorded the same level of protection from "statements that create dissonance" as other groups in this country are.

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work as appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com and The Rant. He can be reached [email protected]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/weinreb030804.htm

[betsy]

There is something odd about the Liberal's attitudes towards the Jews.

"Now THIS little story is hitting the newswires ...as slowly and quietly as cold molasses oozing out of a jar in the Arctic.

VANCOUVER (CP) - Divisions within the Liberal party over the Middle East deepened Tuesday with two leadership contenders calling for the resignation of the party’s deputy foreign affairs critic.

Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett said fellow Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj cannot retain his post as a foreign affairs spokesman after declaring that Canada should negotiate directly with Hezbollah as part of a bid to restore peace in Lebanon

The Liberals are facing particularly harsh criticism in recent weeks in relation to their Mideast policy - or lack thereof - in the midst of a leadership race.

[...] A number of prominent members of Canada’s Jewish community, including power couple Gerry Schwartz and Heather Reisman, have left the party over its perceived lack of support for Israel’s bombardment of Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon.

While the media didn’t exactly say so, if I understand correctly, the Liberal Party is splitting up in an horrendous and embarrassing explosion of animosity and division and will cease to function as a united force forever more, as it is now but an abysmal political disaster area which can’t possibly form government as they are inept and can’t even contain their animus toward each other and put forth a cohesive foreign policy.

But as long as they’re not “angry”!

As we know, the Conservative Party has been imploding since its inception a few years ago, according to hundreds of liberal media stories. As if to help me prove it their bias, the headline for the above story has nothing to do with the massive split and embarrassment within the Liberal Party as I indicated—it was about the Conservative Party and what one of them (quite accurately) said. It was: Harper spokesman likens Hezbollah to German Nazi party of the 1930s.

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index...tire_left_wing/

[Higgly]

Well I don't think Harper's comments are baseless.

Politically Incorrect

The new anti-Semitism and the Liberals

by Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor, Canada Free Press

March 8, 2004

The "new" anti-Semitism is the expression of hostility against Jews...

What Weinreb ignores is that Israel is constantly in the news, while Myanmar rarely ripples a headline. This draws people's attention to Israel; they will form opinions about and make comments on things that have their attention. I would be hard pressed to find a day in the past 10 years when Israel was not in the headlines. I bet if you did a word frequency count of the Globe and Mail over the past 10 years, you would find the word Israel more than you would find the word Saskatchewan.

This is just intellectual bafflegab to try to repress comment on Israel.

[M.Dancer]

On one hand Betsey suggests a liberal Gov't would sanction Israel and in the next she posts a story of two top liberals demanding a resignation.......

[betsy]

http://www.cjpac.ca/mideast.php?id=12

Thanks for the effort......

Hmmm...you got to hand it to Graham. It's no easy job. I would think he's trying his best to do some damage control.

Surprisingly, the 4 frontrunners of the leadership race have all been mum about this Liberal foreign affairs spokesman MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj. So...just shows what all their indignation is all about: losing votes!

[Big Blue Machine]

Iggy's defending his 'war crimes' comment...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/13/...eff-israel.html

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Argus]

Harper's comments are a dirty smear, nothing more.

Harper is only saying what many others, including many Liberals, have been thinking and saying. A number of high-profile Liberals have quit the party over repeated anti-Israeli comments by Liberal MPs and candidates. Remember Gerry Schwartz and Heather Reisman? Does the name Borys Wrzesnewskyj mean anything to you? How about Thomas Hubert? Did you hear that Irwin Cottler's wife has torn up her membership card in disgust?

The thing is, the Liberals have been a party which cares about nothing and no one but power for decades now. Their support for Israel, such as it was, was based not on any moral or ethical values, but solely on their perception there was more votes to be had that way. As the number of Muslims has risen in Canada more and more Liberals are thinking there are more votes to be had in calling Israel names instead. We saw that with Ignatieff, who at first said he wasn't losing any sleep over Quana, but when he figured that was costing him ethnic votes he suddenly makes a point of calling it a war crime. The result: pleased comments from Canadian Muslims - and, I suppose, votes and money from Muslim delegates.

Harper's support for Israel is based not on a craven effort to win votes, but out of his own real beliefs and honest sympathy for a democracy surrounded by hostile enemies.

I think we'll be seeing more and more Jews leaving the Liberal party in the coming years. Just like so many left the NDP over its virulently anti-Israel positions.

[Topaz]

Harper and the A/C's (alliance/conservatives) are so inexperience of running a country that almost everyday that they have been in power they do or say something stupid to offend alot of Canadians! Right now, he just trying to divide the Lib party and then conquer a majority government at election time. What I have seen on "Question period" so far, the A/C are going down at election time. They perform for the camera and say nothing of how they are going to govern the country or even answer the question when asked!

[jdobbin]

A federal court probably could not make abortion illegal. They could allow state legislatures to reclaim the territory of legislation in the area. This would probably result in legal abortions in the highly urbanized states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Oregon and Washington, and a patchwork of restrictions elsewhere. In practice, abortions are not available in much of the remaining areas now anyway, because of fear of social disapproval and/or violence.

I've heard legal opinions in the news that a federal anti-abortion law could trump state law. Are you absolutely certain, it wouldn't?

[Higgly]

Remember Gerry Schwartz and Heather Reisman?

I sure do. What is your point?

[jdobbin]

Remember Gerry Schwartz and Heather Reisman?

I sure do. What is your point?

I think the max they can give the Conservative party is about the max I can donate to a party. Thanks, Stephen Harper!

[Higgly]

Are you saying you can match Heather and the Schwartzman? This I gotta see.

[Argus]

Harper and the A/C's (alliance/conservatives) are so inexperience of running a country that almost everyday that they have been in power they do or say something stupid to offend alot of Canadians!

So you think running the country is all about being inoffensive?

Right now, he just trying to divide the Lib party and then conquer a majority government at election time.

Wow, how evil! I wonder why on Earth he'd do a thing like that!?

What I have seen on "Question period" so far, the A/C are going down at election time. They perform for the camera and say nothing of how they are going to govern the country or even answer the question when asked!

Seems to me they're answering the question of how they're going to govern the country by - er, governing the country.

[Ricki Bobbi]

So you think running the country is all about being inoffensive?

Seems to me they're answering the question of how they're going to govern the country by - er, governing the country.

Seems to me he somehow thinks he is being witty by changing the party name. Typical. Turn a thread about the Liberal leadership race into a lame attempt to run down the Government. So .... back on topic.

The Liberals are really hurting themself with the Jewish community. Typical run/sit in opposition from the left. Well that won't get them back in power in the spring.

[jdobbin]

Are you saying you can match Heather and the Schwartzman? This I gotta see.

Money-wise, yes.

[jbg]

Where are all the condemnations of Hezbollah by the liberals - the one sided condemnation on their part points to their anti-Israeli stance. Harper is only stating the obvious - methinks the Liberals doth protest too much.

Analogizing Lady Macbeth to the Liberals is not a bad analogy at all. They have shown, with their position on Israel and Adscam, about her level of morals.

[jbg]

George Bush is pro-Israel and he bought into an Iraq policy that was essentially drafted for Benjamin Netanyahu by Paul Wolfowitz.

Nice loadup with code words and code names.

Thanks. Do you deny it is true?

This warrants a comprehensive response.

The Jews seem to be the only group that people find reasons are not sufficiently "exploited" or "disadvantaged" to deserve rights, such a state, and self-determination. Every single African or Asian tinpot leader of an "independence" movement, just about, received a state, combined with, at world expense, a national airline, UN seat, and armed forces. Indeed, rather than develop their countries, most of these leaders diverted almost all the aid they received, or resource revenues, into the military, either for self-preservation (the leaders', not the countries') or for conquest. There is, in point of fact, very little "national" significance to most African or Asian boundaries. The boundaries were chosen to correspond with colonial boundaries. The given excuse was to aoid bloodshed. The real reason was to ensure a lucrative role for the leader, including receiving booty from the UN. No one on the left has questioned Mugabe's right to rule a state, or questioned Zimbabwe's boundaries, for example. Mugabe is no doubt a very wealthy man, measured in Swiss Bank accounts. Zimbabwe is a country with no historical or ethnic basis other than boundaries laid down by the British.

Similarly, when Biafra, a Christian and animist enclave, sought to secede from Nigeria, and use the oil wealth to better the people, the Leftists in the West were quite content to allow Nigeria's dictator to starve the Ibo tribesmen into submission, and wage a bloody war against them. Where is the outrage?

During WW II an unholy cabal of leftists and rightists butchered the Jews for no other reason than their religion. There were survivors in the camps. Does anyone rationally think the Jews could have returned to the very villages where their neighbors identified the victims as Jews so they could be rounded up and placed on trains to virtually certain death?

The land that is now Israel was largely festering swamps and desert during the mid-1800's. The land was largely owned by absentee Ottoman landlords. The Zionist movement raised money and purchased much if not all of this land on the open market. They invested labor, money and love. Arabs came, drawn by employment opportunities.

This land was a natural place for the Jews, displaced by the Holocaust, to move to. As it is, the land promised them was reduced by more than half in the early 1920's, with Transjordan being severed to give the tinpot leader of the "Hashemites" a kingdom. They themselves were a minority. Then, in 1947, as Britain prepared to dump the mandate, even more land was taken off, to attempt to appease the Arabs. In the interim, immigration had been restricted at the same to as Britain, Canada and the US largely slammed their doors. Thus, 6 million people, utterly trapped and without an exit, were killed.

Now, the rest of the world wants to sever even more land from the Jewish State, to appease the Arabs yet again. Keep in mind, the Arabs have never stated that any round of surrender would be the last, and that they would live side by side, in peace and recognition, with a remaining rump of Israel.

Meanwhile, the Arabs are on the march against the West elsewhere. On September 11, 2001, October 2002 (Bali), March 11, 2004 (Spain), and July 11, 2005 (London) the West has endured horrific attacks. The attacks were aimed, simply, at killing as many innocent people as possible.

In view of this history, posters have the gall, the "chutzpah" (a Yiddish expression that translates roughly into the emotions one would feel towards a murderer who kills their parents pleading for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan) to suggest, by use of code words and Jewish names, that the US's policy is being run by Jews? What is wrong with the West's superpower, for once, doing what is good for the West rather than what is good for those that would deprive us of our freedoms, or kill us?

Have these posters no decency or common sense?

[August1991]

Every so often but far too rarely, there is a good post on this forum. jbg, you have just made such a post.

It seems relevant to cite the following quotes that I posted previously:

There is no negotiation with Hizballah and Hamas because they want to push Israel into the sea.

Perhaps you have heard of Maryam Farhat, who sits in the Palestine Legislature as a member of Hamas. Three of her six children were suicide bombers.

Here is what she said about peace and Israel (in December 2005):

Peace means the liberation of all of Palestine, from the (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) Sea. When this is accomplished – if they want peace, we will be ready. They may live under the banner of the Islamic state. That is the future of Palestine that we are striving towards.

Dream2, Egyptian TV

Here's what Hassan Nasrallah (head of Hizballah) said about Israel (in 2000, his views have not changed):

I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.

Washington Post

There is no negotiation possible with people having such a viewpoint.

Would any of the Liberal leadership candidates say that they agree with both Jean Charest and Jacques Parizeau? Yet at least Parizeau and Charest both seek their goal through peaceful means.

Dion, for example, has only harsh words for separatists believing that there is no accomodation possible. I can only believe that the Liberal leaders have adopted their non-commital, anti-Israel position out of sheer expediency.

[jbg]

Every so often but far too rarely, there is a good post on this forum. jbg, you have just made such a post.

Thanks, sincerely, for the compliment.

Dion, for example, has only harsh words for separatists believing that there is no accomodation possible. I can only believe that the Liberal leaders have adopted their non-commital, anti-Israel position out of sheer expediency.

Quite likely it's more the "political correctness" disease.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Who is advising Ignatieff?

No prime minister has the right to say that anyone who voices a criticism of Israel is an enemy of the Jewish state, Liberal leadership front-runner Michael Ignatieff charged in a stinging attack levelled at the Conservative leader on Friday.

In a hard-hitting speech in Toronto, Ignatieff blasted the prime minister for his remarks accusing the Liberal Party of an anti-Israeli bias.

Does he really think he is helping his chances in the next election *IF* he wins the leadership?

Keeping this story alive only helps the Conservatives.

Good work Igster!

[gc1765]

Does he really think he is helping his chances in the next election *IF* he wins the leadership?

Keeping this story alive only helps the Conservatives.

Good work Igster!

Should Iggy tell (his version of) the truth, or just say what will help get him elected?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Should Iggy tell (his version of) the truth, or just say what will help get him elected?

How can he lead the Liberals if he isn't going to "just say what will help get him elected"?

Honestly the Canadian right spent 12 1/2 years winning such moral victories. If the Liberals want to choose a leader who thinks this is a good way to go I'm sure Harper is all for it.

This kinda reminds me of the reign of Stock Day.

[gc1765]

Should Iggy tell (his version of) the truth, or just say what will help get him elected?

How can he lead the Liberals if he isn't going to "just say what will help get him elected"?

So, assuming that the liberals have a history of saying what gets them elected...do you think iggy should continue with this tradition or do you think he should tell the truth?

[Ricki Bobbi]

So, assuming that the liberals have a history of saying what gets them elected...do you think iggy should continue with this tradition or do you think he should tell the truth?

As a Conservative supporter I hope Iggy keeps telling (his version of) the truth.

Unfortunately, he might do himself so much damage with his *truth-telling* to cost himself the nomination.