Thomas Mulcair's support for Israel

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

The End of the 'Two-State-Solution' is the Beginning of a More Just Future

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/the-end-of-the-two-state-solution-is-the-b...

The two-state policy is dead.

Lord Palmerston

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I'd honestly like to find out what he actually thinks. But some people are saying that silence = evasive = oppose, which is a bridge too far.

Nash, Dewar, Topp and other leadership candidates are on record supporting the Palestinian statehood bid.  Mulcair is supposed to be this "strong leader" and a "future PM", so his silence doesn't cut it.

socialdemocrati...

KenS wrote:
Do I need to count off how many Israeli politicians are on record as favouring a two state solution, but quietly go along with making sure that there is no Palestinian state? It includes the Labour leader who as Prime Minister oversaw the de facto building of a Palestinian state. But then Sharon reversed that with military facts on the ground, and Israel actively occupied more and more while talking peace and making sure the Palestinian proto-state stays immobilized.

So thats the context for "merely" not supporting Palestinian statehood.... which NDP policy does not require of an MP. You only have to mouth the same words as our government: I/we support the two state solution. [But we also provide cover for Israel making sure there is no formaly equal partner so they can continue indefinitely imposing their will.]

All I'm trying to say is that the NDP policy has been (for better or for worse) more similar to (or at least more permissive of) Mulcair's position than Libby's. That's been the case at least as long as the Jack Layton era. That's not even to say that Mulcair's private feelings are the party policy. It's more to say that *strategic silence* is the party policy. (Again, for better or for worse.)

HOWEVER... that silence is not complete permissiveness of Israel, as even Mulcair has said "Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been one of the chronic impediments to peace and constitute a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention."

And considering the complete lack of influence we have over the Middle East, I can't say there's an effective difference between this strategic silence and any of the other leaders.

It's also a certainty that we'd be just as ineffective on this issue with an entire party of Libby Davieseses, and I'm not just saying that because we'd never get to 155 seats.

socialdemocrati...

Lord Palmerston wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I'd honestly like to find out what he actually thinks. But some people are saying that silence = evasive = oppose, which is a bridge too far.

Nash, Dewar, Topp and other leadership candidates are on record supporting the Palestinian statehood bid.  Mulcair is supposed to be this "strong leader" and a "future PM", so his silence doesn't cut it.

No one has asked him.

For whatever reason, no one has probed this issue any deeper than getting his agreement with the party policy. As far as he knows, it's only a fringe who think the UN bid is a critical issue in this leadership race. Even as someone who cares, I only barely care, and it almost never comes up in conversations I have with people in their concerns about politics.

If people HAVE asked him directly "what about the UN bid?" then there must be a transcript out there somewhere.

I'm not defending Mulcair so much as the idea that you should have to have evidence of something. At this point, my bet is if you did ask him there's a 33/33/33 chance he'll say "yes/no/dodge".

KenS

SMD, that quote of Mulcair's is characteristic of every politician, including some who provide cover for everything Israel does short of the massacre in Gaza.

And it isn't a question of Libby's defacto position OR the 'more moderate' one. They have BOTH been tolerated in the NDP for their practical divergences from the very limited official policy.

Nor am I going to give Mulcair a pass for [allegedly] 'just' making sure that the NDP was staying within politicaly safe bounds. That is the job and role of the critic. We only need one of those, with possible public input from the Leader. Mulcair had an established habit of freelancing.

I personally think its water under the bridge now. But I strenuously object to revisionist sanitizing.

I'm inlcined to agree with you that the document from the organization criticizing Mulcair is over the top in what they accuse Mulcair of. But you seem to take from that that they are making up a history for Mulcair. I dont agree on that. And I think the Libby affair was 'just' an extreme form of what he had long been doing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

For me support of Zionism by North America Jewery implies whether stated or implied "whatever the hell Israel wants to do, is just fine". Sorry I don't buy into that anymore, since I learned to think for myself. Two states, yep, I have no problem with that, but really over time Israel will cease to exist as a "Jewish State", unless the go the route of South Africa. Frankly, given how the treat the Palestinians, that is how I feel about Israel, and its supporters. As a Jew, it makes me feel embrassed and ashamed. I think the march of time will eventually resolve this, and I don't think it will be in a way that sees the continued existence of a Jewish State. It has nothing else to do other then with demographics and time. That is all there is to it.

socialdemocrati...

KenS, to be more specific I wouldn't say people are making stuff up so much as they're extrapolating using only a small amount of data. The Libby Davies incident was a monumental clusterfuck for a dozen different reasons (including the grandstanding by Mulcair), but it shouldn't be taken as evidence that now the NDP is indistinguishable from the CPC. Not even on Middle East policy. But people seem to inflate the Davies incident into "Mulcair is indistinguishable from Harper", while dismissing the letter where he criticizes settlements in the West Bank and notes they're in violation of the Geneva convention. I'd really just prefer we move passed the incident and talk about the actual NDP consensus on this issue.

If people want to prove he's indistinguishable from Harper, they have a LOT more evidence to gather. (Understatement.)

Or they could just stop their criticisms at the more reasonable "there are better NDP candidates on this issue".

NDPP

Hey MS, these links don't work...

(just like the NDP's Israel-Palestine policy)

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

KenS wrote:

Do I need to count off how many Israeli politicians are on record as favouring a two state solution, but quietly go along with making sure that there is no Palestinian state?

No, you don't, because the so-called two-state solution is a fraudulent construct of the enemies of Palestinian liberation.

Forget the two-state solution

Forget the two-state solution, part 2

Forget the two-state solution, Part 3

Forget the two-state solution, Part 4

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Sorry. Fixed.

(Now fix the NDP's foreign policy)

doofy

LP,

My point is that, as SDM has pointed out, Nash, Mulcair and the other leadership candidates are generally on the same page w/ regards to the Middle East. None of the candidates support IAW, for e.g. One of Nash's leading backers, was as strident (if not more strident) as Mulcair in  condemning it. I am genuinely curious if Nash shares DiNovo's perspective on this issue. My suscpision is that, while Nash may present her POV in a more "diplomatic" way, she would not disagree w/ the substance of DiNovo's position. You are getting your hopes up if you think any of the leadership candidates would adopt a highly critical stance vis a vis Israel.

My secondary point, is that while you may disagree w/ the nuances of a candidate's position the Middle East, that does not mean that you cannot in good conscience support him/her. I used the hypothetical example of DiNovo running for the ONDP leadership. I suspect a lot of Nash supporters would endorse her (b/c of her other qualities), while disregarding the way in which she outlined her views on Israel/Palestine.

Lord Palmerston

AFAIK Mulcair is the only NDP leadership candidate who joined the anti-IAW pile-on.  

 

socialdemocrati...

Jack Layton joined on the pile on too, and said "apartheid" was inappropriate.

Or did you only mean current leadership candidates?

Lord Palmerston

Did Layton say he didn't like or didn't agree with the apartheid reference, or did he actually join in the condemnation of universities for holding Israel Apartheid Week?  There's a difference (maybe not enough of one, but to say Mulcair was just doing the same as Layton is absurd.)

 

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

For me support of Zionism by North America Jewery implies whether stated or implied "whatever the hell Israel wants to do, is just fine". Sorry I don't buy into that anymore, since I learned to think for myself. Two states, yep, I have no problem with that, but really over time Israel will cease to exist as a "Jewish State", unless the go the route of South Africa. Frankly, given how the treat the Palestinians, that is how I feel about Israel, and its supporters. As a Jew, it makes me feel embrassed and ashamed. I think the march of time will eventually resolve this, and I don't think it will be in a way that sees the continued existence of a Jewish State. It has nothing else to do other then with demographics and time. That is all there is to it.

Arthur, your words describe almost exactly my evolution as a Canadian Jew as well, though being older, maybe I got there a few years earlier. It was actually 1967 that settled the issue for me, though I was quite young. I saw Israel launching a "pre-emptive" war, but I was sure they would return to their borders once peace was established. As the months went by, I realized that they had no such intention. I remember my dad telling me that Begin was a terrorist, but then when he became prime minister, saying: Well, but still, we have to support Israel, what choice do we have? I decided I had a choice. And as a Jew, I came to understand that Israel was not only toxic for the people of the region, it was toxic for all Jews - a living declaration that we can no longer live among the nations of the world, where we and are ancestors were born, but that we have to live in our "own" state - on land stolen from others, to boot.

It hasn't been easy to maintain that stand. But it's gratifying to see so many Jews standing up and rejecting the role of oppressor, and the self-imposed ghetto. That's why it makes me sick when someone says, "Oh, Mulcair is pro-Israel because of all the Jews in his riding". Mulcair is pro-Israel because he has no feeling for the oppressed and subjugated of that region. He is pro-Israel for the same reason that official NDP policy always has been (even if his flavour is much more extreme): Because it's easier than the alternative. He can say, "hey, I'm just saying the same as Obama".

Which mainstream politician can I, or any pro-Palestinian activists, compare our views about Israel and Palestine to? Of course, there are none. Not even Libby Davies, because she has been bludgeoned into silence.

At least we can still say our piece on a progressive discussion board. Right?

LP, I agree with you about Mulcair, but please don't kid yourself too much about Nash or Topp or the rest.

 

socialdemocrati...

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Did Layton say he didn't like or didn't agree with the apartheid reference, or did he actually join in the condemnation of universities for holding Israel Apartheid Week?  There's a difference (maybe not enough of one, but to say Mulcair was just doing the same as Layton is absurd.)

He said he didn't agree with the apartheid reference. No comment on the condemnation. To be clear, I never said it was the same.

socialdemocrati...

My question is still whether it's fair to say he's outside the NDP on this issue, let alone that he's indistinguishable from Harper.

I appreciate Unionist conceding that no NDP MPs that would qualify as pro-Palestinean in his books, and that the differences between the leadership candidates are slight. I also lament it. Unionist has a legitimate viewpoint that warrants representation, and in a big tent party committed to peace we do need some pro-Palestinean voices to balance the pro-Israel ones, as part of a consensus for just peace between two states.

I've been doing a little bit more research. Navigating the parliamentary debates is excruciatingly hard. You won't hear any denial from me that Mulcair has done some grandstanding on his support for Israel. I just want to know the policy consequences of that.

I did find this:

"KAIROS is also funded by the governance sector of CIDA. Despite the fact that KAIROS is internationally recognized and respected, CIDA has withdrawn all $7 million of its funding. Coincidentally, we learned today from Elizabeth Thompson of Sun Media that $7 million is precisely the amount paid by the Conservatives to their own political staff for all kinds of bonuses. What is the Conservatives' priority: world peace or lining their own pockets?"

Which is consistent with his other statement calling for better aid to Palestinean refugees and so on. That doesn't make him Libby Davies, but it definitely makes him a New Democrat, which I hope is enough for all of us.

Lord Palmerston

But you said that Layton "joined the pile on too."  But what Mulcair wasn't just expressing disagreement with a word, he joined the right-wing attack on univiersites for 'allowing' IAW to take place.  

Unionist is of course to point out that there are problems with Nash, Topp, etc. and the two state solution idea.  The fact that Mulcair however is within "acceptable" bounds of NDP policy is abhorrent.  That's because saying that "I support the two state solution" means you're within acceptable discourse (BTW John Baird too is on record stating he supports the two state solution.)

And at least the other candidates are putting their money where their mouth is and supporting the Palestinian statehood bid, not echoing the right-wing strategy of expressing support for the two state solution but giving Israel a veto power over whether the other partner's offers are acceptable.  

Unionist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I appreciate Unionist conceding that no NDP MPs that would qualify as pro-Palestinean in his books, and that the differences between the leadership candidates are slight.

 

Utterly false - and indeed, a very interesting style of argumentation.

Of course, anyone can read my comments for themselves and recognize the distortion and misinterpretation. If anyone has any difficulty with parsing my posts above, please let me know and I'll bore everyone with an elaboration.

socialdemocrati...

Couldn't find much else. But I though it was reassuring to see this quote about NATO (in the conext of Afghanistan), for all the people who thought he'd be some kind of neoconservative.

The other thing that I can tell the member, despite the number of years that he tells us he spent flying around Europe, is that NATO is not a peacekeeping organization. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was created to wage war, to be the first line of defence against the former Soviet Union. It is the United Nations, and that is why the New Democratic Party of Canada is in favour of handing this mission over to the United Nations

That comment from Mulcair sent the Conservatives howling.

 

(Edit: Unionist, my misinterpretation is not deliberate. Let's just agree that there are no MPs who are especially pro-Palestine, let alone leadership candidates. I can see how you would still think the differences between the candidates are more than "slight".)

Unionist

Mulcair's unequivocal stand on Afghanistan, among some other crucial issues of the time - especially when Jack was still parroting Dawn Black's creative rejection of the 2006 convention - was one of the key factors which won my support in the 2007 by election and in the elections since. Calling for Canada to end our own direct military intervention was, in my mind, far more immediate than our varying views on the Israel Palestine debacle. On that front, Mulcair was way out in front of the party, and deserved credit and support for that.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Nowhere in that link did Mulcair mention Palestine or Israel. He did talk about Haiti, Iraq, and the Congo.

And if you've been combing through Hansard surely you must be aware that the NDP was not the only party to condemn the government's withdrawal of funding for KAIROS. So the passage you linked to is quite irrelevant to the point you are attempting to make.

socialdemocrati...

I'm not trying to make a point, so much as rebut the ludicrous point that Mulcair would be indistinguishable from Harper, even on just on this issue. I think there's fair criticism, and then there's unverified speculation, and as reasonable people we should know the difference.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Unionist wrote:
Which mainstream politician can I, or any pro-Palestinian activists, compare our views about Israel and Palestine to? Of course, there are none. Not even Libby Davies, because she has been bludgeoned into silence.

Libby was silenced after Mulcair's attack on her in June 2010. However, she spoke for five minutes last night at the Canadian Boat to Gaza event in Vancouver, about her 2009 trip to the West Bank and Gaza with the delegation of Canadian MPs. The main speaker on the event was Ehab Lotayef, and Egyptian-Canadian from Montreal who was one of the passengers on the boat.

Hunky_Monkey

Left Turn wrote:

Libby was silenced after Mulcair's attack on her in June 2010.

Could you please repost Mulcair's exact words when he "attacked" Libby? And could you share your thoughts on Layton's role in her apology and his apology to the Israeli ambassador that became public somehow? Thanks.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I'm not trying to make a point, so much as rebut the ludicrous point that Mulcair would be indistinguishable from Harper, even on just on this issue. I think there's fair criticism, and then there's unverified speculation, and as reasonable people we should know the difference.

"Indistinguishable" may have been a tad hyperbolic. But that doesn't change the fact that Mulcair's position on Israel is on the right wing of the NDP.

He [url=http://rabble.ca/columnists/2010/12/postscript-new-mccarthyism]happily participated[/url] in 2010 in the Harper-sponsored conference of the so-called [url=http://rabble.ca/news/2010/11/anti-semitism-and-free-speech-parliament-w..."Interparliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism"[/url], a thinly-disguised project to demonize critics of Israel.

Hunky_Monkey

It was reported here by someone that Mulcair, as a guest speaker, took to task a Jewish group over their positions against the Palestinian people.

Can anyone confirm this?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Could you please repost Mulcair's exact words when he "attacked" Libby? And could you share your thoughts on Layton's role in her apology and his apology to the Israeli ambassador that became public somehow? Thanks.

Mike DeSouza wrote:
Thomas Mulcair, the NDP's other deputy leader, said he found the video online last week and "was very quick to point it out" to some of his colleagues to clarify the party's support of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

"No member of our caucus, whatever other title they have, is allowed to invent their own policy," said Mr. Mulcair. "We take decisions together, parties formulate policies together, and to say that you're personally in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions for the only democracy in the Middle East is, as far as I'm concerned, grossly unacceptable."

Murray Dobbin wrote:
When Layton tried to punish Libby Davies he and the party were quickly brought up short by literally thousands of emails denouncing his efforts and his fawning apology to Israel. Mulcair was uniquely responsible for the firestorm, for had he not publicized, and agitated about, Davies' remarks, they would have gone unnoticed. So what could cause Layton to risk another blast from progressives across the country? Is it simply his fear of alienating his only Quebec MP -- his foothold in that province? Did Mulcair influence him or deliver an ultimatum? Did he receive pressure from leaders of the pro-Israel lobby in Canada? Layton owes it to his supporters to explain his decision.

NorthReport

This is what this thread should be about.

John Baird cut pro-Palestinian remarks from his UN address

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/john-baird-cut-pro-palestin...

Unionist

Thanks for that timely reminder, Spector! And I'm pleased to note I opened all those threads except the last. There can be no doubt that the immense backlash (no, not just from babble!) stopped Layton from doing any more to Davies than public humiliation. It was a proud moment for many justice-loving members and supporters of the party. But the net effect was a chill that still persists to this day.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture
Hunky_Monkey

M. Spector wrote:

Mike DeSouza wrote:
Thomas Mulcair, the NDP's other deputy leader, said he found the video online last week and "was very quick to point it out" to some of his colleagues to clarify the party's support of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

"No member of our caucus, whatever other title they have, is allowed to invent their own policy," said Mr. Mulcair. "We take decisions together, parties formulate policies together, and to say that you're personally in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions for the only democracy in the Middle East is, as far as I'm concerned, grossly unacceptable."

Murray Dobbin wrote:
When Layton tried to punish Libby Davies he and the party were quickly brought up short by literally thousands of emails denouncing his efforts and his fawning apology to Israel. Mulcair was uniquely responsible for the firestorm, for had he not publicized, and agitated about, Davies' remarks, they would have gone unnoticed. So what could cause Layton to risk another blast from progressives across the country? Is it simply his fear of alienating his only Quebec MP -- his foothold in that province? Did Mulcair influence him or deliver an ultimatum? Did he receive pressure from leaders of the pro-Israel lobby in Canada? Layton owes it to his supporters to explain his decision.

The HORROR! What a vicious attack! And very accurate...

And thanks for the opinion piece by Dobbin. That's all that is.

Azana

Post 3, above quotes the CPJME media release. It mentions that, at a meeting in 2008, Mulcair said: "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances."

Does anyone know the context of the meeting? Who was he talking to? Was it reported in the media at the time? Has he denied saying this?

Unionist

Azana wrote:

Post 3, above quotes the CPJME media release. It mentions that, at a meeting in 2008, Mulcair said: "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances."

Does anyone know the context of the meeting? Who was he talking to? Was it reported in the media at the time? Has he denied saying this?

It was April 30, 2008, in an evening celebration at the Renaud-Bray bookstore on Ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges, organized by the Jewish Tribune to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel. Mulcair was one of many politicians present. Unfortunately, the only report I can find is in the French version of the Canadian Jewish News, and even that survives only in [url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qRCRL7cBsy4J:www.cj...'s cache[/url].

Here is what he was quoted as saying:

Quote:
“Ma femme, Catherine Pinhas, née en France et dont la famille est d’origine turque, est une descendante des Sépharades expulsés d’Espagne en 1492. Nous, quand on pense à 1492, on pense à Christophe Colomb et à son arrivée en Amérique. Mais, pour les Juifs sépharades, 1492 évoque leur expulsion d’Espagne par les Rois catholiques. Un des gestes les plus gracieux que j’ai vus en politique au cours de ma vie a eu lieu, en 1992, quand le Roi Juan Carlos Ier d’Espagne est allé demander pardon aux Juifs dans une synagogue de Madrid. Mes beaux-parents sont des survivants de l’Holocauste. Leur histoire fait partie de mon quotidien. C’est pourquoi je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”

Let me know if you need a translation.

 

NorthReport

It really needs to be said in context

In other words his wife is of Jewish descent and his in-laws were Holocaust survivors. Who would not say that they support Israel under such circumstances?

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

It really needs to be said in context

In other words his wife is of Jewish descent and his in-laws were Holocaust survivors. Who would not say that they support Israel under such circumstances?

I wouldn't. My parents were Holocaust survivors. Nor would huge and growing numbers of progressive Jews. I'm trying to be calm and poised about this, and not suggest that your post associates the Jewish people with support for Israel, i.e. with aggression, discrimination, occupation, and war crimes. I don't want to show any hostility here. Just begging you to please think over what you said and understand how offensive it is.

 

NorthReport

I'm talking about a non-Jewish person who I assume loves his wife and her family. As a non-Jew myself I can readily understand how Mulcair would make a comment like that. Is it possible that you might be taking this out of context?  In other words the topic was about his wife's family roots and not the Middle East conflict.

And not being Jewish, and for sure partly because of the Holocaust, I have always been somewhat reluctant to criticise Israel.

I believe it is largely up to the Israeli people to resolve their issues, just as it up to us Canadians to resolve ours.

 

Azana

Thanks for this Unionist. I googled and googled and couldn't find it. No translation needed. I found the CPJME release lacking in detail about what Mulcair said. It's a big decision we have in front of us and this information helps.

I started the campaign being very scared of a Mulcair leadership. He's had a great campaign which allayed many of my fears.  However, this and his public transit announcement has started him on a downward trend on my list.

NorthReport, there's a huge difference between saying you support the existence of the State of Israel (regardless of your religeous background or your spouse's family history) and saying "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances." While I really don't think you intended offence, it's unfair to generalise the uncritical support of Israel to all Jews, Holocaust survivors and their families.

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

And not being Jewish, and for sure partly because of the Holocaust, I have always been somewhat reluctant to criticise Israel.

That's right, and it's disturbing how those Palestinians don't show the same reluctance to criticize Israel. They're not as sensitive to the suffering of others, I guess.

Quote:
I believe it is largely up to the Israeli people to resolve their issues, just as it up to us Canadians to resolve ours.

Sure, which is why Mulcair attends a celebration of 60 years of Israel chasing 3/4 million Palestinians out of their home and states for the public record that he is an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances. I guess he was speaking as an Israeli then, rather than as a Canadian?

 

pcml

 

This is game changing for me...with out a doubt

Some very good comments in all this ....Unionist ..Spector hell even Arty ...a few more too...well said !

 

Yes although he will probably win I wont vote for mulcaire 

Hell I was even going to go grill him on tuesday as I got the invite yesterday

 

Oh well....sorry if a man cant stand for the common sense answer because he is already on the record as partisan and ignore what is the plain and obvious truth ...  he isnt worth voting for 

 

I rescind my vote and think it will be nathan cullen actually who would get my support actually
And based on  astrology the candidate most along the lines of jack layton

 

mulcair is also a Libra moon I just discovered ..so sorry

 

Example?

Moon Sign for 24 October 1954 

Libra

Diplomatic, aesthetical, avoiding confrontation, understanding and attentive. Likes to spend time with the partner, hates situations that require to make a choice.

The Moon in Libra people have a desire to conciliate conflicting interests, to help even complete opposites to meet somewhere, to find a peaceful solution for a conflict situation. In short - they are inborn diplomates. Intuitively, they feel that everything in this world has two sides - a positive and a negative - and try to restore harmony where, as they think, there is no balance. If someone is praised onesidedly, the Moon in Libra will add something negative about that person. But if someone is criticized, the same Moon in Libra will add something positive to the mixture.

It is quite typical for the Moon in Libra individuals to hezitate endlessly in situations where some choice is required. The result of their decision doesn't become better from the amount of time spent in hezitations - they just pick something at random when there is no possibility to delay anymore.

Relationships can often be the most important part of life for the Moon in Libra people. Not only their emotional well-being, but even the state of their health might depend on how successfully they find mutual understanding with their partner. In order to restore their balance after a significant stress, they need to spend some time together with someone who is dear to them, to speak about their problem, to feel compassion and understanding. And if they don't have such an opportunity for a long time, if stress continues to build up, the Moon in Libra can become inconstant and erratic. They can develop a problem with kidneys and get lower back pain as a result. Another typical health problem for them is a migraine-like headache, which also often has its roots in kidneys.

The Moon in Libra gives aesthetical perception. These people know quite well what they like and what they don't, which colours and styles look right and which do not match. Parents with such a Moon are often worried about how to dress their children elegantly and fashionably so that nobody could say that there is something wrong in their family. The image of their family means a lot for the Moon in Libra individuals, and being good diplomates they try to always make a good impression and to hide any existing problems.

So I thank all of you for creating this thread as it and this issue are important to any fair minded freedom oriented person or should be

 

NorthReport

Azana,

Never mind how I expressed myself as that is a red herring. The issue here is I believe you and Unionist you are taking Mulcair's comments out of context. 

 

I regret having participated in this Middle East thread because like the millions of ME threads before it, and I'm sure the millions of ME threads after it, they have been, are, and will be, an absolute waste of time.

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:
The issue here is I believe you and Unionist you are taking Mulcair's comments out of context.

I provided you with the context. You were defending him without knowing the context. You were not only defending him, your first comment in this thread was:

NorthReport wrote:
Who else is tired of this BS?

Now, after having overcome your weariness and thrown a few posts around about how we shouldn't criticize Israel out of sympathy for Jews and the Holocaust, you've decided it's time to stop the discussion again.

I don't know if you can imagine how hard it is for a Jew in Canada to spend decades rejecting Israel and what it does to both Palestinians and Jews. Maybe you should ponder that question before having so much sympathy for us Jews. You know what? We don't need sympathy. That's what you get when someone dies.

 

Azana

I can easily accept that your phrasing was well-intentioned, even if not entirely appropriate.

But can you explain how "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances" can be taken out of context. I'm not trying to be rude, but the "all situations and all circumstances" bit seems to cover most contexts I can think of. In what context are you suggesting that these words become acceptable?

I can only assume that Unionists description is accurate. It was a meeting to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel. Mulcair's wife's family is Sephardic. Her parents are Holocaust survivors. I don't blame him for attending the event. I even liked the story he told about King Juan Carlos. Mulcair could have said that he supports Israel. He could have said that he supports Israel's right to live peacefully with it's neighbours. Better, he could have expressed support for a peaceful future for Israel and Palestine and hoist a glass of Manishevitz.

But " "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances" seems excessive for the context for someone who claims to support NDP policy on the question.

NorthReport

Go fuck yourself Unionist. You're too friggin' intense.

And just look at the ME. A lot of good your efforts have been.

All this thread is a about is a whichhunt to try and smear one of the NDP candidates for Leadership with absolute BS.. That is all it is, nothing more, and nothing less.

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
The issue here is I believe you and Unionist you are taking Mulcair's comments out of context.

I provided you with the context. You were defending him without knowing the context. You were not only defending him, your first comment in this thread was:

NorthReport wrote:
Who else is tired of this BS?

Now, after having overcome your weariness and thrown a few posts around about how we shouldn't criticize Israel out of sympathy for Jews and the Holocaust, you've decided it's time to stop the discussion again.

I don't know if you can imagine how hard it is for a Jew in Canada to spend decades rejecting Israel and what it does to both Palestinians and Jews. Maybe you should ponder that question before having so much sympathy for us Jews. You know what? We don't need sympathy. That's what you get when someone dies.

 

KenS

You know North Report, I dont agree with a lot of where Unionist goes with this.

But you are more than off base for chalking it up to his desire to smear Mulcair. You too frequently bandy about such accusations.

Does it count for nothing that Unionist has said repeatedly that he still supports Mulcair pretty strongly? And that's not a reason for you to at least take a pause in because you dont like it, it must just be all about smearing Mulcair?

You know, just maybe it has something to do with the issue.

By the way, you have said both that the issue is trivial- "who cares?" And you have said that it matters, but this is just about smearing Mulcair.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

NorthReport wrote:

And not being Jewish, and for sure partly because of the Holocaust, I have always been somewhat reluctant to criticise Israel.

So only Jews have a right to criticize Israel, is that it? And somehow Israel should get a free pass because of the Nazi Holocaust? How does that work, exactly?

Why don't you just come right out and say that criticizing Israel is anti-semitic and equivalent to denying the Holocaust?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, M Spector, I wouldn't say I can give anyone permission by virtue of my being Jewish, but I don't have any problem with criticizing Israel. If it turns out what they say strikes only me as anti-semitic, then I'll say something. But seriously, anyone should be able to say what they think, This issue doesn't know racial constraints. For what it is worth, I say go ahead, and no, you don't have to be Jewish to have an opinion or wish to express one.

NR, you can criticize Israel without being anti semitic or any less a supporter of Israel. You shouldn't feel intimidated by not being Jewish. Like any issue its what you have to say and add that matters, not who you are.

One man's opinion, for what it is worth you guys.

Art

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

We are part of NATO. The USA will decide what's good for Canada. lol

Like they did regarding Canada going to war in Iraq?

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Why don't you just come right out and say that criticizing Israel is anti-semitic and equivalent to denying the Holocaust?

 

Sometimes, but not all the time, it's considered antisemitic to discuss 9/11 "conspiracy theories." Former Liberal Party candidate Leslie Hughes found that out the hard way. Right-rightists and non-truthers in general have certain things in common when condemning heretics for their heresies.

NDPP

Perhaps some straight up questions about ME policy, Palestine and Israel should be put to the leadership candidates when they come here to answer, so a comparison can be made and people can make their decisions accordingly?

Pages

Topic locked