Liberal contenders slam Harper for 'anti-Israeli' accusation

[Biblio Bibuli]

Will Sunday's debate be on www.cpac.ca ?

I'll be watching it on CBC Newsworld on channel 26 here in Vancouver. It's on 20 in Victoria (hello JLK), 15 in Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge (Hello Geoffrey and Neil Adesky), 22 in Regina (hello Paul MacDonald), 45 in Winnipeg (hello ScottSA).

[jdobbin]

If the husband's contnued existence poses a danger to the general public, it may well be necessary to kill the innocent wife. You don't sacrifice the general safety to protect one person.

I think some people chose the kill option before thinking of any other.

[Rue]

Two things and let us deal with Harper's comments second but the target of his comments first.

It is perfectly legitimate for Harper or any politician to make allegations that any or all Liberal leadership candidates or the LIberal Party have an anti-Israeli bias. That is politics. You don't like it-instead of acting all self-righteous and instead of hiding behind your wife's religious status, debate your position.

So let me be blunt. Everyone knows for the last ten years, the Liberal Party adapted the French foreign policy approach in the Middle East and in an attempt to portray itself as neutral actually became bias bending over backwords to the trendy politics of the day which was to never under any circumstance

criticize Hebollah or Hamas or terrorism directly and bluntly but to use neutral words.

As far as I am concerned, it is absolutely no help to Palestinian people to think you are their friends by molly-coddling the terrorists in their midst. What Palestinians need are people of moral fortitude and principal willing to stand with them and show them there is an alternative to terrorism to achieve their means not meely mouthed politicians afraid to lose their ethnic vote so they say what-ever they think caters to the ethnics in their constituency and so if you are Carolyn Parrish you deliberately make anti-semitic remarks and trot out the anti-Zionist remarks to suck up to the majority of Palestinian Canadians in your riding or if you are a non Jew with Jewish people in your riding you make sure to distance yourself from certain LIberals when they go on junkets and come back lecturing the world on how evil Israel is.

The Liberal party coasted on the fact that it was the party Jews would vote for simply because in the past the Tory party traditionally was the party of elite wasps who did not like playing golf with Jews but would tolerate them if they needed an accountant, dentist or perhaps a hernia operation at Shuldice Clinic.

The fact is the Tory party after Mulroney took over did what the Liberals did, it went out and marketed and brought in ethnic minorities and the French Quebec vote and since then that exclusive monopoly of being the party of minorities evaporated. When the Reform Party started off being a rural party of white boys from the West and fundamentalist Christians it was of course quickly labeled as a racist party. When it merged with the Tories, its fundamentalist Christian wing was toned down by Harper.

Of course fundamentalist Christians tend to be very pro-Israel on foreign policy so that adds to the paradox.

As for Steven Harper. say what you want but he is much more clear, blunt and to the point as to where he stands and if someone bothers to listen to what he says, while he unequivocally supports Israel's right to exist and comes right out and condemns terrorism UNLIKE ANY LIBERAL candidate, he does not make anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian comments and if someone bothers to read or listen to what he says he has consistently supported the Oslo accord formula, i.e., that Palestinians be given a state in the Gaza and West Bank.

Harper is not a Bush clone. If someone bothers to read what he writes and says they will see he is more balanced in his approach to the Middle East-the fact he is not afraid to come right out and say terrorism is wrong is being used to label him a Bush clone and that is intellectually lazy.

Now as for the Liberal candidates let us look at their record. Start with Bob Rae. He thinks he can coast on his wife's Jewish status and his statements on the Middle East have been absolutely meaningless. Read back what he says-he has gone out of his way to refuse to commit to any position on anything. To me that makes him a snively coward and his wife's Jewish status does not give him exemption.

Now let us talk about Ignatieff. How can a made who tells everyone he is an authority on international human rights and every chance he gets remind people he is a Ph.d from Harvard to tout his aura of invincibility make such diametrically opposed statements on the same issue and think he has any credibility?

Let us start with the obvious. To commit a crime there must be deliebrate intent or mens rea even if it is an international crime. Ignatieff being the human rights experty should know, that the Israeli Defence Force did not deliberately intend to kill civilians. The fact that they did was tragic and its horrid and yes we can debate that it should not be done, but to call it an international war crime is absolutely stupid and irresponsible for a man who knows what the definition of an international war cime is and knows it could never be successfully argued as such in a court room.

What all the LIberal candidates should have clearly stated when asked about this issue was simple; they should have stated that what Hamas and Hezbollah do are acts of terror and deliberate in nature and constitute crimes against humanity. What the IDF does in reply can not be equated on the same moral terms. The IDF unlike Hamas or Hezbollah wear uniforms and are readily indentifiable. Their mandate unlike the mandates of Hamas or Hezbollah is not one to wipe out all Palestinians. Hezbollah and Hamas have charters calling on the genocide of Jews world-wide. The IDF's mandate is to defend the safety of its citizens period.

Hamas and Hezbollah share the moral culpability of chosing to engage in acts of terror and then place their people in harm's way as shields. The moral culpability begins and ends with them.

If Israel did nothing when attacked by Hamas or Hezbollah it would be abrogating its moral and legal responsibiloty to its citizens to protect them.

Neutral third party evidence from journalists, has no shown us that Hezbollah were in fact firing rockets from mosques, hospitals, schools, apartment buildings. There is actual film of Hezbollah running back into schools, mosques, hospitals, apartments, after firing rockets.

The game is simple. If Israel fires back civilians die. That is what Hamas and Hezbollah want. They want civilians dying so that they can use this as a media tool.

No one now questions rockets were launched from Qana. Hezbollah has even admitted it. Israel has three choices; i-do nothing as civilians die and the silence is then construed as weakness which causes an increase in furthr attacks, ii-use commando attacks where soldiers have to enter into civilian homes, hospitals, moques, schools in search of the terrorists and engage in a cat and mouse game of attrition where civilians will die, or iii-shoot back at the last known missile launch coordinates.

Any way you slice it, Palestinian civilians or Lebanese civilians die and Israeli civilians die and the moral culpability for that lies solely with Hezbollah and Hamas.

If any candidate wants to criticize Israel's decision to strike back, then they must also be intellectually honest enough to suggest what the alternative is to terrorist attacks number one, and number two, in their statements they must be clear that the terrorism and international crime is initiated by the terrorists and to suggest the IDF has a deliberate policy to kill Palestinians or Lebanese is absolutely false because if it were true hundreds of thousands moe civilians would have died in a ground war.

Case in point, when the Syrian Army went into villages in hot pursuit of the Muslim Brotherhood, unlike Israel it did not warn the civilians first to flee, nor did it choose to use commandoes trying to enage in

limited pin point precision attacks. It simply went in and killed 10,000 civilians within a few hours.

Same thing happened in Algeria when it was fighting political terrorists in its country.

So yes it is easy to criticize Israel for fighting back and killing civilians in the process, but usually the people critcizing have never lived through war or witnessed a terror attack, haven't a clue how small Israel is and who they are dealing with.

And I will say it again because it needs to be said, no it is not right Palestinian civilians or Lebanese civilians must die, just as it is wrong Israelis die. The way to stop this is to say it like it is-the cause for this is terrorism and we must all universally condemn it and simplistic answers as to bad and good and black and white do not work.

Ignatieff should have explained that the moral culpability and criminal intent lies with the terrorists and that Israel was allowed by law to defend itself but we ALL agree, that the death of civilians on either side is

horrible and we must work to defuse the terror so both sides can sit and work towards peace.

Instead Ignatieff deliberately chose poor words to originally discuss the issue and then on French radio/t/v/ knowing he was talking to a French audience completely sympathetic to the Lebanese, he deliberately delivered them some inflammatory buzz words seeking to win them over no different then what Carolyn Parrish became famous for by using coded anti-semetic words and choice anti-zionist buzz words to cater to her Palestinian constituency.

Ignatieff is an insincere prostitute of the worst kind and is smarmy thinking he is smarter then all of us.

As for Kennedy, Rae, Dion, its time they all developed a scrotum sack or two and made a clear statement that the problem in the Middle East is caused by terrorists and a Canadian government must strongly stand against terrorism which is not antithetical to helping both Israel and Palestinians achieve peace.

They should have come out and said, no peace can be achieved if we play politics and are afraid to chastize terrorists for fear it will alienate Muslim votes. On the other hand, if they want to criticize Israel, do so but be clear on what the criticism is for and take your lumps if your position is hipporcritical.

As for the Liberal Party Chretien's decision to mimmick French foreign policy made a laughing stock of this country. We are a country that believes in democracy and strongly condemning terrorists.

We are by far a people not afraid to come out and say, if you engage in terrorism for any REASON it is b.s.

What has happened is the LIberal Party has allowed itself to fall into this trend in academic circles to try justify terrorism as the act of victims and in so doing ignoring the true victims which are BOTH Palestinians and Israelis who need people like Canadians to let terrorists know they are full of crap and that the way to help both sides is to create and implement peaceful dialogue and grass roots peace projects where both sides exchange civilians to live and work in each other's environment and to identify common goals such as fresh water supply to work on.

So as far as I am concerned if Harper wants to dance all over the Liberal Party its fair game. I think Ignatieff is a complete fool, Rae is a coward for hiding behind his wife, Kennedy is a light weight, Dion is a bumbling bureaucrat, and the rest are pathetic losers trying to consolidate positions for themselves in the post Martin era.

If I am Harper I am laughing. The only person who had any credibility to discuss foreign policy was Ignatieff and now he has shown the world he is either brain damaged or a complete misfit. Time he packed up his prissy sheltered soft privileged butt and high-tailed it back to the ivory tower in Boston. The real world is not working out for this pathetic twit who has never worked an honest job in his life.

As for Bob Rae, if he thinks he is going to win votes skinning dipping and poking fun at himself, he is mistaken. This country wants someone with pride and dignity and statesmanship not someone who makes a fool of himself.

The Liberal party has now doomed itself to failure and Harper will get his majority government.

[jbg]

Rue. Great synopsis. Did you put that together?

[Figleaf]

[...on

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Argus]

Harper's support for Israel is based ...

...on either his Bushist leanings, or fundamentalist beliefs about attaining Armageddon.

I'm basically agnostic, and really don't like Bush at all. And I support Israel.

[gerryhatrick]

What's with the name mispelling? It's not my real name, so you're not going to offend me if that's your intent.

If you don't think there's a rightwing political correctness that's pervasive in Western society today then I guess we're just not on the same page. To me it's quite obvious that critisism of Israel, or almost any military Mid-East involvement by Israel or the West , is treated to a barrage of outrage.

We have two dailies in my Canadian city, and they're both extremely rightwing in their editorials. Liberals are cut-and-runners, Israel is 100% right in everything it does, Stephen Harper is the second coming, Iraq is a great democracy movement, George Bush is a hero and Canadians are all anti-American. This is in Canada I see this constant stream. It's ok, because the truth always wins in the end, but this current rightwing political correctness is undeniable.

Look at Iggy. He said Israel committed war crimes. What happened? Outrage. Shrill protest. Disbelief. Does any media outlet ask the question "What is he talking about? Let's go look at the case for what he's saying and report on it....". Of course not.

Grehatrick is just a way of recognizing the special status you have on the board. In all cases if it wasn't an issue to you it wouldn't have been mentioned.

Ok whatever. I just thought it was kind of dumb, that's all.

You really shouldn't be allowed to spread such hate on a message board affiliated with a publicly-funded university. Why should tax payer dollars go to a site that allows you to continually break the rule to spread your lies and hatred about the Prime Minister and his party?

Huh?

Please do start the swearing again. Yet again another example of your special status. But given your quick edit last time I'll make sure to post them so you can't change your posts.

You're a child.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Argus]

Harper's support for Israel is based ...

...on either his Bushist leanings, or fundamentalist beliefs about attaining Armageddon.

I'm basically agnostic, and really don't like Bush at all. And I support Israel.

So?

Uhm, I'm kind of suggesting there might be other reasons for supporting Israel other than being a Bush lover or a religious fanatic....

[Figleaf]

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[jbg]

Uhm, I'm kind of suggesting there might be other reasons for supporting Israel other than being a Bush lover or a religious fanatic....

I'm an extreme leftist and am supporting Israel.

[gerryhatrick]

Uhm, I'm kind of suggesting there might be other reasons for supporting Israel other than being a Bush lover or a religious fanatic....

I'm an extreme leftist and am supporting Israel.

Is it possible war crimes were comitted by Israel, as two major human rights groups contend?

[gc1765]

I'm an extreme leftist...

On which issues?

[jbg]

Is it possible war crimes were comitted by Israel, as two major human rights groups contend?

If someone starts a question in a deposition with "is it possible" I object to form, saying "anything's possible".

But Israel is well-known for prosecuting their own war crimes. If these "two major human rights groups" have such evidence they should turn it over to the IDF. If proven, it will be dealt with, against the offending soldiers, harshly.

I doubt that Saudi Arabia deals with itinerator head-choppers (of Christian travelers) harshly.

I'm an extreme leftist...

On which issues?

Pretty much all issues. It's hard to find one I'm not.

[gerryhatrick]

Is it possible war crimes were comitted by Israel, as two major human rights groups contend?

If someone starts a question in a deposition with "is it possible" I object to form, saying "anything's possible".

Alright then, I'll try again.

Do you accept that Israel has been accused of war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and do you lend any credence to those accusations whatsoever?

[jbg]

Alright then, I'll try again.

Do you accept that Israel has been accused of war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and do you lend any credence to those accusations whatsoever?

Israel is well-known for prosecuting their own war crimes. If these "two major human rights groups" have such evidence they should turn it over to the IDF. If proven, it will be dealt with, against the offending soldiers, harshly.

[gerryhatrick]

Alright then, I'll try again.

Do you accept that Israel has been accused of war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and do you lend any credence to those accusations whatsoever?

Israel is well-known for prosecuting their own war crimes. If these "two major human rights groups" have such evidence they should turn it over to the IDF. If proven, it will be dealt with, against the offending soldiers, harshly.

You are repeating yourself and avoiding a very specific question.

I'm sure Israel is well-known for prosecuting their own war crimes. That's really irrelevent though. By ignoring my questions I will assume your answers to my questions are no and no, respectively.

It's interesting you put "two major human rights groups" in quotes. Yes, those are my words, I realize that....but since I've named these two groups for you, your quotes carry the connotation that you don't view Amnesty or HRW as credible.

And you're to the left of center, huh?

[jbg]

You are repeating yourself and avoiding a very specific question.

I'm sure Israel is well-known for prosecuting their own war crimes. That's really irrelevent though. By ignoring my questions I will assume your answers to my questions are no and no, respectively.

It's interesting you put "two major human rights groups" in quotes. Yes, those are my words, I realize that....but since I've named these two groups for you, your quotes carry the connotation that you don't view Amnesty or HRW as credible.

And you're to the left of center, huh?

My point is there is a process to determining if a war crime has been committed. Israel has tribunals capable of making those determinations. Israel is not Nazi Germany. Israel is not Bosnia. Israel will not be tried on a political bulletin board.

As far as those "human rights groups" where are they with the world's real atrocities, the Janjaweed in Sudan, Iraq during the Hussein era, etc.? Where are they in Russia, where people who oppose the government are now dieing strange, violent deaths?

And, yes, I am probably to your left, as far as being left of center.

[WestViking]

Is it possible war crimes were comitted by Israel, as two major human rights groups contend?

If someone starts a question in a deposition with "is it possible" I object to form, saying "anything's possible".

Alright then, I'll try again.

Do you accept that Israel has been accused of war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and do you lend any credence to those accusations whatsoever?

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are self-styed leftist shills unworthy of serious considerations by rational and sober people.

[betsy]

Is it possible war crimes were comitted by Israel, as two major human rights groups contend?

If someone starts a question in a deposition with "is it possible" I object to form, saying "anything's possible".

Alright then, I'll try again.

Do you accept that Israel has been accused of war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and do you lend any credence to those accusations whatsoever?

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are self-styed leftist shills unworthy of serious considerations by rational and sober people.

They are a joke.

[betsy]

My point is there is a process to determining if a war crime has been committed. Israel has tribunals capable of making those determinations. Israel is not Nazi Germany. Israel is not Bosnia. Israel will not be tried on a political bulletin board.

There's something about an over-indignant Gerry and his obsessed trial-on-board and condemnations about people he doesn't like.

Give me some time...I'm still trying to figure it out how the pet EGALE will fit into all this.

After all, if Gerry can equate Israel with the Nazi...I guess we can mold anything to the way we want it to be....by sheer creativity! Or a good toke?

[gerryhatrick]

My point is there is a process to determining if a war crime has been committed. Israel has tribunals capable of making those determinations. Israel is not Nazi Germany. Israel is not Bosnia. Israel will not be tried on a political bulletin board.

I did not imply that Israel is nazi Germany.

So if Israe determines they did not commit any war crimes, you are satisfied that Israel did not commit any war crimes?

As far as those "human rights groups" where are they with the world's real atrocities, the Janjaweed in Sudan, Iraq during the Hussein era, etc.? Wher ear ethey in Russia, where people who oppose the government are now dieing strange, violent deaths?

Amnesty, for one, is there in all those cases you cite...reporting on the dissappearences and attrocities. Do you realize they publish a yearly report?

It's quite obvious you have no respect for either organization I cited. You are no more left than my right shoe.

People on the right hate international human rights organizations. There has never been a good one, in their view, and never will be. They ignore the fact that their own rightwing governments will cite these organizations as authorities when it's convenient to them. It's easy for them to condemn, but hard to talk intelligently about the reality of the work done by Amnesty. They have no idea, first of all, and secondly if they looked into it they'd realize the depth and scope of their own ignorance.

[jbg]

My point is there is a process to determining if a war crime has been committed. Israel has tribunals capable of making those determinations. Israel is not Nazi Germany. Israel is not Bosnia. Israel will not be tried on a political bulletin board.

I did not imply that Israel is nazi Germany.

So if Israe determines they did not commit any war crimes, you are satisfied that Israel did not commit any war crimes?

Yes.

As far as those "human rights groups" where are they with the world's real atrocities, the Janjaweed in Sudan, Iraq during the Hussein era, etc.? Where are they in Russia, where people who oppose the government are now dieing strange, violent deaths?

Amnesty, for one, is there in all those cases you cite...reporting on the dissappearences and attrocities. Do you realize they publish a yearly report?

It's quite obvious you have no respect for either organization I cited. You are no more left than my right shoe.

People on the right hate international human rights organizations. There has never been a good one, in their view, and never will be. They ignore the fact that their own rightwing governments will cite these organizations as authorities when it's convenient to them. It's easy for them to condemn, but hard to talk intelligently about the reality of the work done by Amnesty. They have no idea, first of all, and secondly if they looked into it they'd realize the depth and scope of their own ignorance.

www.freedomhouse.org is not a bad one. I have a problem with international groups that are lazy. Why lazy?

It is easy to focus on open societies such as Israel, where their "workers" are free to travel and report as they please. Try doing that in Putin's Russia or in the Sudan. Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency admits that they have reams of data on "harmless countries such as Sweden and Canada" and not enough on countries such as Iran.

I suspect the reason is a combination of the relative safety and comfort of "working" on open societies and nattering about relatively minor imperfections compared with the danger of working in totalitarian or failed states, and the anti-Western, feel good guilt about being Western and prosperous themselves.

[jbg]

And you're to the left of center, huh?

You deserve a fuller answer than I gave you before.

In 1972, my father and I worked actively for the McGovern campaign. Probably the last thing extensive I did with him before his death of cancer at age 47.

In 1982, while I was awaiting admission to the Bar, I worked as a volunteer with Westchester Legal Services, to help the impoverished minority residents of the southern part of Westchester County preserve their rights against greedy landlords and an even more rapacious, corrupt and crooked Mount Vernon city government. We preserved many peoples' housing for the winter, so they didn't have to spend their Christmas out on the street, or freeze in the two-foot Megalopolis Blizzard of February 1983. Some of the legal precedents we set preserved the rights of these poor people to not lose their property when temporarily stored or seized, by means of so-called "warehouseman's liens".

More recently, in 2003-2005 we obtained the return of a lower middle class black lady's house that was taken from her as part of a mortgage scam run by Orthodox Jews. While ultimately our office was paid for about 1/3 of our time, that payment was a major discount and while the work proceeded we were at risk for almost all of it. At the end of our work, our impoverished client, a struggling swithcboard operator for a local hospital (and uneducated and not sophisticated) was returned to the ownership of her home.

So the answer is, I have spent blood, sweat and tears to help real poor, disadvantaged people, and worked arm and arm with them. Further, one of the partners of my firm is a Jamaican black female. We work with her with total disregard for color, gender or nationality.

What minority and/or disadvantaged people have you worked with or helped?

[Figleaf]

But Israel is well-known for prosecuting their own war crimes.

I guess this confirms something I've wondered. There are simply NO limits on the ludicrous nonsense Israel's apologists will propagate.

If proven, it will be dealt with, against the offending soldiers, harshly.

The offending soldiers, eh? What about the offending regime?