Mulcair and Israel 3

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

jerrym wrote:

In the meantime, perhaps some of you critics might look at seeing if you could develop some empathy for Mulcair's position as husband of a Jew, even if you will never vote for him.

You should wash your mouth out with soap.

I have far less sympathy for opinions like yours than I do for Mulcair.

You are saying that we should empathize with some pro-Israel-war-criminal asshole because his wife is a "JEW"? I consider that opinion to be anti-semitic and pro-imperialist.

And if that drives people out of "the party", then fuck the party.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

KenS wrote:

Testimony that the driver is by no means just or primarily the leadership campaign.

What the hell are you insinuating?  Did you just imply that Babble is a hotbed of antisemites?  If you're going to say that, say it right out loud and offer proof.  Otherwise, you have an obligation to delete that, since, as written, it's a despicable slander of the people who post here.

jerrym

You totally misinterpreted what I was saying, but I am not going to get into a slanging match with you are obviously not open to any discussion except on your own terms.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Winston wrote:

No less than a half-dozen threads about Israel and Jews on this board...

 

The only thread about "Jews" at the moment is a thread attacking a right-wing Sun TV host for his insane accusations of Jewish control of Hollywood.  Nobody is starting antisemitic threads here.  Babblers don't tolerate that shit.

 

josh

Yes, I wonder whether jerry is saying all Jews think alike on Israel, or just Jewish women. Or only Jewish women who are married to non-Jews.

jerrym

To make it clear my previous post was meant for Unionist.(You totally misinterpreted what I was saying, but I am not going to get into a slanging match with you are obviously not open to any discussion except on your own terms.)

Unionist

jerrym wrote:

From my perspective, life tends to be much more complex than portrayed in the demonizing attacks I see on Mulcair here. It also seems to me that many of you seem obsessed with Israel-Palestine situation here or in the leadership debate and pay little or no attention to many other international problems either because it is understandable from your social background perspective or it is advantageous it in this leadership debate.

Comments like yours don't belong anywhere decent people gather.

Unionist

josh wrote:
Yes, I wonder whether jerry is saying all Jews think alike on Israel, or just Jewish women. Or only Jewish women who are married to non-Jews.

I've flagged his post and I call it anti-semitic. He's saying that Mulcair's pro-Israel fanaticism is understandable because his wife is a JEW. I actually find it hard to believe that attacks on Jews are allowed to stand and fester in this place.

ETA: Sorry, I forgot to mention in my condemnation of his diatribe that he also "understands" his wife's mistrust of "Moslems" (whoever they are) because of some life experience of hers.

Filthy racism that we are supposed to "empathize" with. Fuck that.

 

jerrym

You are twisting every word that I said. The reason that there is no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question is that both sides mistrust each other based on past experience. Most comments on what the political solution to the creation of a Palestinian state will involve the current borders or some approximation of that. However, because of this mistrust on both sides and the power of the Israeli state to maintain its occupation, there hasn't been any resolution. I said that i understand my wife's sense of distrust based on her experiences. I did not say that I agree with it. I asked whether people could have some empathy (understanding), not sympathy, for how having a Jewish wife might influence Mulcair's position. In view of the overwhelming level of speculation about all political candidates thoughts with little or no evidence to back it up, I find the above comments offensive. Furthermore, if one cannot discuss issues of people's feelings on issues openly, they won't be discussed.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

jerrym, I can tell this is a sensitive issue with you, but I agree completely with Unionist's point of view here. There are no circumstances where we should seek to "understand" or permit prejudice or hate because of past experiences--indeed, there are many examples of lived experiences of prejudices which result in the individual rejecting prejudice of any kind in any situation. There's also the problem of you of associating a political view (support for Israel) with an ethinicty or religion (being Jewish). That is also based in racist and anti-Semitic logic. I hope you will accept this and either reconsider or drop the issue. That's how we look at these issues on babble and I hope you will respect that.

Brachina

Unionist wrote:

jerrym wrote:

In the meantime, perhaps some of you critics might look at seeing if you could develop some empathy for Mulcair's position as husband of a Jew, even if you will never vote for him.

You should wash your mouth out with soap.

I have far less sympathy for opinions like yours than I do for Mulcair.

You are saying that we should empathize with some pro-Israel-war-criminal asshole because his wife is a "JEW"? I consider that opinion to be anti-semitic and pro-imperialist.

And if that drives people out of "the party", then fuck the party.

 

I really don't think that was what he was trying to say at all, I think,there has been some kind of misunderstanding and everybody needs to step back and relax.

I think that prehaps Jerry did jump to conclusions in assuming his wife's situation was simular to Mulcair's wife's, I don't know what Mulcair's wife's position on Isreal is.

I do understand why he questions why Palastians evoke some much more passion then other repressed peoples.

And why would any of this drive people,out of the party? For most Canadians thier only position on the middle east is a vague wish for people in the region to stop killing each other, with no greater understanding then that. With the majority of Canadians,,unlike on,rabble, Isreal/Palastine isn't a major issue, its not even a minor issue.

I'm staring to believe that 95% of the antiMulcair sentiment is over Isreal, with 5% being his tax plan isn't detailed enough, with the rest just pretext to attack Mulcair over. Maybe instead of Mulcair or Topp running to lead the NDP, it should be Abbas and the leader of Isreali labour party. Of course then the Question becomes which when would be better suited to keeping the NDP seats in Quebec ;) I'd bet on Abbas, he has more experience in governing.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Way more people have been killed by the despotic government of Syria in the past few months than the combined death toll in Israel/Palestine since 1948 - yet no one seems to give a hoot about that in comparison to the obsession with Israel.

This is bullshit. A very conservative estimate of Palestinians killed since 1948 would be [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_war]25,000[/url]. The Syrian opposition, for what it's worth, says [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Syrian_uprising]9,000[/url] have died in the Syrian uprising.

But it's not just a matter of genocide olympics. We happen to have a government, a corporate mainstream media, and opposition political parties who side with Israel in every conflict. We don't have a government or opposition or MSM that backs the Syrian regime. (Nor, I might add, do we have thousands of Canadians who regularly send money to Syria to prop up its murderous government.) That makes a huge difference to our political priorities.

And I would invite jerrym to check out babble threads on the [url=http://rabble.ca/search/apachesolr_search/congo+genocide]Congo genocide[/url] before he concludes that we don't care about it.

jerrym

Once again I will try to explain. When Obama was running for president the first time, he was challenged on why he went to  a church where the preacher appeared to make racist statements. He made a broadcast in which he discussed this issue and how his own white grandparents had made racist remarks and how he still loved them and understood how their viewpoint arose in American society. i have visited 63 countries and seen racial, ethnic or religious hatred in every one of them whether between Catholics and Protestants in Canada (I grew up in a community where the comment "There's a Catholic. Lets beat him up"), discrimination against Blacks and Irish in Birmingham England, Arab/Berber hatred in Morocco, an Ashkenazi girlfriend who stopped going out with me because she learned I had went out with a Sephardic Jew, Chinese riots over the allegation that there were too many Blacks in their universities, Protestant/Catholic hatred in Ireland, Barbadians dissing Jamaicans, Vietnamese suppression of Montagnards, Christian/Moslem fighting in the Philippines, Flemish and French speaking Belgians refusing to speak the others language, whites hatred of Blacks in the United States, discrimination based on the degree of blackness of one's skin in Latin America, and the treatment of Aboriginals (including threats to have guns ready for First Nations people who visit a white-owned garage in Manitoba) in every country I visited. One of my points was these other issues are rarely, if ever, discussed here.

if you think that we are ever going to eliminate this without understanding the social, emotional, economic, racial, family and personal conditions that give rise to these problems and how they influence their belief systems and how "nice people" can have these beliefs, I wish you luck. Personally, i do not think you will change anyone's opinion by screaming at them. You might stop their behaviour if you have sufficient power and sometimes this is necessary to prevent violence, but it won't change their beliefs and the first chance they get they will revert to form. See the Balkans where the Cold War suppressed prejudices for decades before conflict erupted again in the 1990s. Furthermore, if you do not understand the forces involved in creating the problem, I find it hard to believe you will change their beliefs. 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

You don't need to explain it again. Nice people can be racist, pro-imperialist, warmongering shits. And all because they suffered some personal trauma in their lives (or their wife did, or their wife's uncle did, etc.).

So we should go easy on these people. I get it.

Unionist

And because Mulcair's wife's parents were allegedly Holocaust survivors (or something - see Mulcair's speech in 2008), we should empathize with Mulcair's feelings about keeping Palestinians colonized and victimized. The logic is simply overpowering. And it goes on and on.

Some Jews drew the conclusion that all racism, genocide, and dehumanization of people is wrong and must be combatted. Some others drew the conclusion that Jews can only be safe if they leave their countries of origin and make a separate country - on other people's land - and become an arsenal for Western imperialism and a racist pariah state. I have heard, from a number of posters, that the spouse of a Jew has to go easy on Israel - meaning that they've married one of the latter types I guess. My reply would be that divorce is always an option. But the real evil here is the presumption that all Jews emerge from persecution wanting to persecute others. That's called anti-semitism.

 

socialdemocrati...

There's a lot of assumptions out here that really don't belong. We shouldn't be assuming that all people with Jewish heritage have the same viewpoint on Israel. But then we shouldn't assume that people who live in Israel or even "support" Israel are pro-persecution. There IS room for people who believe that Israel should exist, but that Palestineans shouldn't be second-class citizens, and the best way to achieve that is a Palestinean state.

Baird gave an embarassingly flagrant speech pandering to Israel, while in Israel. One of the Israeli politicians joked "wow, Canada likes Israel even more than Israelis do." I would say the kind of love Conservatives have for Israel is shallow at best, and more likely insincere. There are lot of Israeli citizens who don't themselves condone certain state actions, but still have a genuine love for their country and passionately support its existence. Support for Israel, and continued support in righting certain wrongs.

This isn't a strawman BTW. I'm just trying to state the obvious in hopes we can find our little bit of peace here on babble.

NDPP

I think that people need to reflect upon the centrality of Israel and Palestinian resistance in the dangerously explosive geopolitics and high stakes Great Gaming underway in the region. This is of momentous importance. Arguably THE most important. It is this which makes Canada's complete and total support for USRAEL so critical. It is similarly critical that no effort be spared in mounting a determined domestic resistance to a continuing transformation of Canada into what Galloway referred to as 'nothing but an embassy for Benjamin Netanyahu' - meeting with Harper and possibly your leader as well today. Canada's deepening entanglements in ever more sinister political agendas in this regard need to be exposed and opposed in a serious manner. Far from doing that, our 'loyal opposition' continues to support the disease rather than any recovery from it. I would hope that those who understand the magnitude of what is truly at stake here, can begin to engage it. There is the additional little matter of a continuing genocide which appears to be moving into its final phases, of course.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

This was mentioned in another thread, but it really deserves to be noted here. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East has circulated a questionnaire to the leadership candidates and on the basis of that and their individual records [url=http://www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=2111&SaveMode=0]has ranked them[/url] accordingly in terms of "their commitment to a constructive approach to the Middle East by Canada" as follows:

A+ Niki Ashton
A Brian Topp
B+ Peggy Nash
B Nathan Cullen
B Paul Dewar
C Martin Singh
C– Thomas Mulcair

Why is Mulcair at the bottom? Here's what the CJPME says:

Quote:
Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Singh were the only leadership candidates who did not respond specifically to the questions in CJPME's questionnaire. CJPME representatives have also found Mr. Mulcair evasive in recent candidates' meetings, giving ambiguous answers to specific questions on Israel-Palestine. In a brief overall statement on the Middle East that he provided, Mr. Mulcair emphasized support for Resolution 242 on Israel-Palestine, and acknowledged that Israel's establishment of colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories violates international law. Nevertheless, his statement revealed an insensitive stance toward the Palestinian refugees - suggesting they be settled in a future Palestinian state, or in their countries of exile - and failing to see any need for redress, or a role for Israel in the resolution of the refugee problem.

Since being elected to Parliament, Mr. Mulcair has overall been a conservative voice in the NDP caucus on Middle East issues. In 2008, for example, he stated, "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances," indicating a lack of commitment to the NDP's principled and balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In caucus, Mr. Mulcair pushed for a subdued NDP response to Israel's lethal 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, and to Israel's assault on the Gaza Aid Flotilla in 2010. He also led a caucus revolt in 2008 when Layton wanted to criticize the Harper government's decision not to participate in the United Nations Conference on Racism. He has also been active in an ad-hoc MPs' group demonising sharp criticism of Israel, and has smeared those who voice it as anti-Semites.

Mulcair evaded giving straight answers to the questions, preferring instead to provide a "brief statement explaining his overall policy on the Middle East". The text of the statement is reproduced in the report. It appears to be the same as the text that Catchfire posted to start off the [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcairs-support-israel... thread-chunk[/url] in this series.

Lord Palmerston

Thank you, this is helpful.  Indeed Mulcair has been hiding behind "I support the NDP policy" or it's the same as Layton or Obama.  

Hunky_Monkey

Another "he led a caucus revolt" bullshit?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Another "he led a caucus revolt" bullshit?

[url=http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=0bdb22e0-382e-4e70-b422-504851... sound skeptical.[/url]

Hunky_Monkey

More speculation. You should ask caucus members that were there. You'll get a different picture.

ETA: Nice to see M. Spector post sources from the National Post :)

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

From the CJPME feedback posted by M. Spector in #68:

Quote:
In caucus, Mr. Mulcair pushed for a subdued NDP response to Israel's lethal 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, and to Israel's assault on the Gaza Aid Flotilla in 2010. He also led a caucus revolt in 2008 when Layton wanted to criticize the Harper government's decision not to participate in the United Nations Conference on Racism. He has also been active in an ad-hoc MPs' group demonising sharp criticism of Israel, and has smeared those who voice it as anti-Semites.

Paul Dewar as foreign affairs critic issued statements against the United Nations Conference on Racism, calling it anti-semetic. Sounds like he was on board with Mulcair on this.

Some seem to think this is just a minor chink in Mulcair's armour. I see it as a very key concern. Standing by Israel first and foremost, as the US has been doing for decades, means supporting US-NATO pre-emptive and inteventionist wars in the region. Middle East policy positions should also reflect each candidate's stance on a potential military intervention in Syria and a potential pre-emptive strike against Iran. I was wholly disappointed that the NDP supported the NATO intervention in Libya. I was wholly disappointed in Dawn Blacks rah rah, let's keep fighting in Afghanistan position as well.

So yes, where the candidates stand on these issues is very important to me.

Lord Palmerston

Hunky Monkey, I know you think that Mulcair's official Middle East statement makes him some sort of "critic" of Israel, but his actions speak otherwise.  

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

[url=http://ijvcanada.org/2012/support-from-israel-lobby-for-mulcair-ndp-lead... from Israel Lobby for Mulcair NDP leadership bid raises serious concerns[/url]

Quote:
The newly revealed Israel Lobby support for Mulcair's NDP leadership bid includes donations from David Mayhood, a former chair of various fundraising programs at the United Israel Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto, an organization which raises millions of dollars for Israel advocacy and the "centrality of Israel" and partners with the Strauss Group, a company targeted for its questionable practices by the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement; and accolades from Shimon Koffler Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, who has called Mulcair " courageous" for his one-sided support of Israel, because Mulcair has, in Fogel's estimation, "consistently challenged the radical element that has sought to capture the soul of their party."

Others contributions to Mulcair's campaign include one from Brent Belzberg, past co-chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA); the endorsement of former NDP MP Lorne Nystrom, who is currently a board member of CIJA; a donation from CIJA board member Joel Reitman; and another from Alvin Segal, who is a board member of the Canada-Israel Chamber of Commerce.

 

Rabble_Incognito

Wow good link! http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=0bdb22e0-382e-4e70-b422-504851...

If Mulcair is a good listener and he wins, then he will have to be accepting of the possibility of a revolt from time to time. He'll have to evolve.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

May want to be careful with that idea, because whoever wins the leadership has to be a manager and be able to keep the peace and maintain caucus solidarity and be fair to a caucus that leans left, right, and centrist.

Rabble_Incognito

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

There's a lot of assumptions out here that really don't belong. We shouldn't be assuming that all people with Jewish heritage have the same viewpoint on Israel. But then we shouldn't assume that people who live in Israel or even "support" Israel are pro-persecution. There IS room for people who believe that Israel should exist, but that Palestineans shouldn't be second-class citizens, and the best way to achieve that is a Palestinean state.

Baird gave an embarassingly flagrant speech pandering to Israel, while in Israel. One of the Israeli politicians joked "wow, Canada likes Israel even more than Israelis do." I would say the kind of love Conservatives have for Israel is shallow at best, and more likely insincere. There are lot of Israeli citizens who don't themselves condone certain state actions, but still have a genuine love for their country and passionately support its existence. Support for Israel, and continued support in righting certain wrongs.

This isn't a strawman BTW. I'm just trying to state the obvious in hopes we can find our little bit of peace here on babble.

Good post, merci. The two state solution is Israel's only hope for peace but I hope Palestinians don't take it. The one state solution is justice for Palestinians. I hope the NDP finds resolution here and stalls making anything but vague nods to Israel, as they're far more powerful than the Palistinians. But that's only me. Also, the NDP can change it's mind with the change of leadership, by processes like panels or review committee. I don't think candidates need to feel wedded to their past answers it is more important there's a coherent 'good' policy when we go against the Tories, than at this precise juncture, imho. So the NDP being 'honest with itself' saying we need to self examine, instead of proposing to be 'right', is the best way to fight Harper and Baird, I think. Principled is always better than superficial love photo ops that all relevant folk can see through.

Gonzaga

I was greatly pained by jerrym's claim that there was too much attention to Mulcair's positions on Israel and Palestine. Perhaps it's less horrific than what's happened in the Congo, but note that Canada doesn't openly support and provide cover for the perpetrators of the conflict in the Congo. Canada is currently supporting, aiding, and abetting Israel's illegal and oppressive occupation, and our prime minister goes around bragging about it. How can that be unimportant?

socialdemocrati...

Not because the issue is unimportant, but our role to play is unimportant. Canada has almost no role in the middle east.

The only time someone might care about our opinion on the middle east is because we're seen as a neutral mediator. But not under Harper. Harper has been running his mouth about this issue more, and our credibility and influence on this issue is diminishing.

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I am Jewish and still voting for Tom. If you don't like his stand on Israel, then don't vote for him. I think the Israelis are acting like the South Afrcans, I want the NDP's position to favor a Palestinina nation state as part of a two state solutino, don't believe in the right of retunr but believe Israel should pay truly meaningful repatriations to victims to be determined by some body such as that Israel hating UN (snark), and just think it is time to move. We know where Tom stands. If you don't like it then work to beat him. I am willing to go with him and hope to effect meaningful change in our position towards the Palestinians and Israel. I have posted these sentiments all over the board, but for my money, enough already!

Unionist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Canada has almost no role in the middle east.

You mustn't narrow the issue to Canada's "role in the Middle East". Of course Canada has no role there. It has no business interfering there either.

But here are the big problems:

1. If you found that there was a move afoot to criminalize currently legitimate criticisms of Israel by defining them as "anti-Semitic" and "hate speech", would you consider that a matter of major concern to all Canadians?

2. If you found that a member of Harper's cabinet stated publicly that [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/an-attack-o..."an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada"[/url], would you consider that a matter of major concern to all Canadians?

3. If you were uncertain as to where a potential leader of the opposition stood on #1 and #2, would you consider that a matter of major concern to all Canadians?

I voted for Mulcair in the last three elections, knowing full well his stand on Israel, and being somewhat uncertain as to has stand on anti-Semitism. I did so primarily because I saw him as the lesser of the available evils (and because I was very motivated to help end the Liberal reign over Outremont). But to close one's eyes, and/or those of others, is unacceptable.

 

Rabble_Incognito

Gonzaga wrote:

I was greatly pained by jerrym's claim that there was too much attention to Mulcair's positions on Israel and Palestine. Perhaps it's less horrific than what's happened in the Congo, but note that Canada doesn't openly support and provide cover for the perpetrators of the conflict in the Congo. Canada is currently supporting, aiding, and abetting Israel's illegal and oppressive occupation, and our prime minister goes around bragging about it. How can that be unimportant?

I concur SD. I think I see your point Gonzaga. I cut Mulcair slack, personally. The NDP lost a leader some readjustment phase is warranted. Such an important decision ought to come out of NDP self searching through a process that makes sense. People are looking to the NDP for leadership so they've gotta show it with principles that show folk valuing the goal of social justice, and methodology is important in this instance, is my feel, regardless of Mulcair's comments.

Crazy how religion in politics ends up blurring justice - esp. the Palestinian / Israel issue - more tears on the horizon I predict.

Gaian

Thank you,Arthur. Your position: "I am willing to go with him and hope to effect meaningful change in our position towards the Palestinians and Israel," is the hope of many.

socialdemocrati...

Unionist, while I respect those concerns, I've been focusing a lot on the rules around hate speech. Conservatives are extremely unlikely to expand hate speech laws in the way that you expected.

Their actual goal now is to diminish them, to allow more anti-Islamic hate speech. And it's eerie to see them getting allies from prominent Jewish conservatives, who previously thought hate speech was terrible, but now say that it warrants a sober second thought to allow legitimate freedom of speech. You can almost hear the dogwhistle.

I also think that war with Iran would be horrifically stupid, especially for Canada. The entire NDP constituency and bench would be reflexively opposed to it. And if not the entirety of the NDP, then enough New Democrats that the party would listen. Why blow up our party's unity and reputation for peace just so we could put a few hundred troops on the ground in a war most Canadians won't care about?

None of this is to take away from your concerns. But I think the likelihood that Mulcair would drag us into a war with Iran, or start throwing critics of Israel in jail, is close to zero. Maybe not as close to zero as Libby Davies. But only barely further from zero than some of the other candidates, and far enough from zero that I'd continue supporting the NDP if he were the leader.

The last ingredient, of course, is that I plan on working and organizing with every partner within reach to prevent and oppose a war with Iran. I'm inclined to believe the NDP agree, and if not, then they wouldn't need much arm-twisting to come around.

Rabble_Incognito

<post issue>

Rabble_Incognito

Mulcair can't unilaterally do much without a revolt. He is surrounded by marxists. :D

Rabble_Incognito

Arthur Cramer wrote:

If you don't like his stand on Israel, then don't vote for him.

Fair 'nuff. Merci Unionist. Frankly I don't believe an attack on Israel by a sovereign state would be tolerated by me, if I ran Canada. So I don't see why Mulcair would accept it. Or anyone - an attack on either Israel or Iran is intolerable. But the fact that it is intolerable doesn't mean it is an 'attack on us' unless the context is universal brotherhood among all folks. A tory, no, but Mulcair, yeah I dunno why someone wouldnt accept principles like universal brotherhood as a reason to protect against surprise attacks on sovereign nations. So Unionist yes I am concerned with creating such a pact, and such all encompassing language. It creates a hair trigger, which doesn't help the cause of peace. I'll be curious to see how the NDP develops policy on this.

 

Stockholm

BTW: Last week i heard Mulcair say in no uncertain terms that he felt there was no possible justification for an Isreali attack on Iran and that he would condemn it if it happened.

Erik Redburn

Do you have that in writing?  That would be nice to see.   

socialdemocrati...

Stockholm, I'm not entirely surprised. But it would be nice to get some confirmation or context.

Unionist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
But I think the likelihood that Mulcair would drag us into a war with Iran, or start throwing critics of Israel in jail, is close to zero. Maybe not as close to zero as Libby Davies. But only barely further from zero than some of the other candidates, and far enough from zero that I'd continue supporting the NDP if he were the leader.

I don't care if Mulcair is the leader or not. And I don't think Mulcair would drag us into war, or throw critics of Israel in jail.

My concern is with a party that is insufficiently motivated to defend against those who would do both. Which is why I have scorned this ludicrous leadership race from the start, and suggested that a serious progressive political organization would do better discussing the direction of the party and the movement and the important issues of the day, no matter who they name as Supreme Leader.

But when people, wrapped up in the heat of the horse race, feel the need to cover up or lie to themselves about dangerous stands and tendencies, because they fear it might reflect badly on the horse they've placed money on - that is the death of any healthy movement, if it's not recognized and checked.

 

Hoodeet

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I am Jewish and still voting for Tom. If you don't like his stand on Israel, then don't vote for him. I think the Israelis are acting like the South Afrcans, I want the NDP's position to favor a Palestinina nation state as part of a two state solutino, don't believe in the right of retunr but believe Israel should pay truly meaningful repatriations to victims to be determined by some body such as that Israel hating UN (snark), and just think it is time to move. We know where Tom stands. If you don't like it then work to beat him. I am willing to go with him and hope to effect meaningful change in our position towards the Palestinians and Israel. I have posted these sentiments all over the board, but for my money, enough already!

Hoodeet (JW)

I agree with you largely but not entirely, since only a binational state would do justice, but there probably would be a civil war among Jews inside Israel before the idea is even discussed.  And I think you meant "reparations" rather than "repatriation" --nice Freudian slip, though!  (:-)

socialdemocrati...

Unionist wrote:
I don't care if Mulcair is the leader or not. And I don't think Mulcair would drag us into war, or throw critics of Israel in jail.

My concern is with a party that is insufficiently motivated to defend against those who would do both. Which is why I have scorned this ludicrous leadership race from the start, and suggested that a serious progressive political organization would do better discussing the direction of the party and the movement and the important issues of the day, no matter who they name as Supreme Leader.

But when people, wrapped up in the heat of the horse race, feel the need to cover up or lie to themselves about dangerous stands and tendencies, because they fear it might reflect badly on the horse they've placed money on - that is the death of any healthy movement, if it's not recognized and checked.

We're getting into much more nuanced territory now. Which means the number of words per post goes up, but the amount of agreement should go up too.

I ultimately think the platform is more important than anything. And the most valuable question isn't who our leader is, but what policies our members are going to support or not.

And to that end, the biggest risk with any of the leaders isn't so much their policy differences -- which are small. It's their organizational and strategic differences.

It's not "what's the differences between the candidates on Israel? NATO? Trade? Nationalization?" -- which are small. It's "on these issues, who is most likely to engage the activist community, and who is most likely to distance themselves from the activist community?" Nash and Ashton are probably more in the "engage" camp, Mulcair is probably more in the "distance" camp (or at least has a far narrower idea of what appropriate activism is), and Topp is probably somewhere in the middle.

Which is probably the reason that other candidates are higher on my list than Mulcair, but I'd still work hard under a Mulcair-led NDP. I want to know that we still have a strong voice, and our participation is actually valued.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I am Jewish and still voting for Tom. If you don't like his stand on Israel, then don't vote for him. I think the Israelis are acting like the South Afrcans, I want the NDP's position to favor a Palestinina nation state as part of a two state solutino, don't believe in the right of retunr but believe Israel should pay truly meaningful repatriations to victims to be determined by some body such as that Israel hating UN (snark), and just think it is time to move. We know where Tom stands. If you don't like it then work to beat him. I am willing to go with him and hope to effect meaningful change in our position towards the Palestinians and Israel. I have posted these sentiments all over the board, but for my money, enough already!

If it were to be "reparations", I think they'd only be acceptable to Palestinian refugees if the reparations were accompanied with actual apologies for the dispossession AND an acknowledgment that Palestinians did and DO have just as deep a connection to the lands in question as do those who identify as "Israelis".  It would have to include Israel and its apologists abandoning the "they were just generic Arab troublemakers who had no history in Palestine" meme.

Westcoast Granny

Meanwhile in the "real" world Canada's ally continues its tough love approach to the problem.

Quote:

Three children were among the 7 Palestinians killed by Israeli air attacks on the Gaza Strip on Monday as the latest escalation between the sides entered its fourth day.

The latest fatalities – two members of the Islamic Jihad – occurred Monday night local time, when the Israel Air Force (IAF) struck al-Nazaz Street in the Sheja’eya neighborhood in eastern Gaza City.

Their deaths brought to 25 the number of Palestinians killed since the latest violence erupted on Friday.

Palestinians are growing weary of the attacks, claiming that no missiles by Islamic groups in the area deserve this response.

“It is like hitting a mosquito who bites you with a house. What did we the people do right now? This is our home, where can we go?” Palestinian farmer from Khan Yunis asked in a phone interview on Tuesday early morning.

Media are reporting the majority of the Palestinians killed were militants, but earlier Monday Palestinian witnesses said a 16-year-old was killed by an Israeli drone missile in Beit Lahia in northern Gaza while he was playing with a rocket launcher.

Palestinians dispute the claim that most of those killed are not militants.

“Everyone is a militant to Israel it seems,” added the farmer.

The Israeli military disputed the claim, saying no airstrikes were carried out in the area at the time the incident was reported.

A separate Israeli airstrike in Jabalia killed a father and his daughter, Palestinians said.

And an Israeli airstrike on the Jabilia refugee camp in the north of the coastal enclave killed two Islamic Jihad militants from the Islamic Jihad, German press agency dpa reported.

Palestinian militants, meanwhile launched close to 60 rockets at Israel Monday, causing no fatalities, but injuring an elderly woman, and sending several people into shock.

The violence erupted on Friday when Zohair al-Qaisi, the secretary-general of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) militant group, was killed in an Israeli airstrike. Israel said he had planned attacks against Israel targets from Egypt’s Sinai peninsular.

Palestinian militants have fired over 200 rockets toward Israel since Friday, forcing around 1 million Israelis into bomb shelters, and the IAF has responded with a series of air strikes.

No Israel citizen has been injured, and few reports of rockets reaching populated areas inside Israel have been confirmed.

Hoodeet

West Coast Granny surely means "tough love" ironically.  Perhaps the terms "racist", "sadistic", "vindictive", "bloodthirsty" would be more descriptive...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You know, when you try to speak to this it is always knowing you may end up doing a lot of damge to yourself. I meant reparations, you know, pay back for suffering incurred. And I mean, it really has to be meaningful. I am guessing we are talking in the hundreds of dollars ranges. I don't know where the money is going to come, but we could figure that out if we have the will to do so. I meant my comments with good will, and a desire to really address historical wrongs. And I also truly believe that Israel's time as a Jewish state is numbered simply due to deomographics and time. Max I Dimont wrote in both "Jews, G-d, and History", and, "The Indestructible Jews", that they Jews have and always will survive. I believe Dimont was right, but just because this is so, it doesn't mean that Israel must always exist. I suspect Israel will have become something else, long after all of us reading these comments on these pages, as well as many of our future ancestors have passed on, our bones have long since turned to dust, and this dust, long since carried away on the wind.

ETA: no offense meant to anyone intentionally but if you take offense because of my point of view, well you are welcome to do so, but don't expect me to change or apologize for mine. I mean good will. Those who wish, can take these comments any other way the want. Frankly, that isn't my problem, nor will it cause me worry. Period.

Hoodeet

Arthur Cramer wrote:

ETA: no offense meant to anyone intentionally but if you take offense because of my point of view, well you are welcome to do so, but don't expect me to change or apologize for mine. I mean good will. Those who wish, can take these comments any other way the want. Frankly, that isn't my problem, nor will it cause me worry. Period.

Hoodeet (JW)

No offense taken by me, certainly, Arthur.  I agree with your statement.

The previous post, about Christians being indoctrinated about Jews being the Chosen People and Israel being their land, omits one crucial thing:  anti-semitism was at the core of Christian ideology until only a few years ago.  The epithet "perfidious" was part of the Catholic liturgy for centuries -- perfidious because Jews refused to accept Jesus as their saviour and had him crucified instead.   So it's a relief and a comfort for  Christians to be able to buy into the Zionist project -- a perfect "out", in a way, that frees them from too much soul-searching about their historical antisemitism -- problem solved, in a way.

The movement by progressive Christians toward criticism of Israeli policies has been a welcome step forward.  It's also one more step away from that pesky history of anti-semitism AND the glorification of the Crusades.

 

Rabble_Incognito

Hoodeet wrote:

West Coast Granny surely means "tough love" ironically.  Perhaps the terms "racist", "sadistic", "vindictive", "bloodthirsty" would be more descriptive...

All good descriptors - fear=respect in the aggressor's mind, transgenerational mutual trauma, it's a mess. I used to be a Christian, and as a use to be, trust me, it takes a long time to come to the conclusion that something like one's faith or a Jewish homeland 'might' be a horrible mess for another whole class of people who may not share one's religious sentiment. It is hammered into Christians Jews are the chosen people and Jesus was Jewish and who wouldn't want Jesus to be in Israel, right? It's also hard to tease out the justice because nobody wants to be a Nazi and allow the holocaust to happen again - this is our own survivor guilt, perhaps, or bystander guilt. My Christian education was weighted towards all things Israel, to some extent the public schooling too. Either way, to understand the injustice you have to know the history and get beyond society's indoctrination about Israel - I don't know Mulcair's faith or schooling in detail, it was never an issue for me as long as he's a lawyer,  religion is irrelevant to doing the job, and Israel/Palestine is one hell of a hard problem to solve, it takes time, for the best people. Five years ago many people would have answered Israel is our ally, like me. We've had to see the pounding over and over to 'get it'. I got educated by my wife about the history and the state of the Palestinians very late in life - she had to pound once or twice. But Unionist is clearly on target the NDP leader has to have an evolved sense of the injustice there. This is a great issue for candidate debate.

Pages

Topic locked