reed writes

Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic

Robert Keith “Bob” Rae is a politician.

He recently attended the City of Toronto’s Gay Pride Celebration.

Prior to that, he issued a statement supporting gender equality and Gay Rights. But the key part of his statement referred to a particular group that marched in the Parade. Here’s the quote that jumped out at me:

“I deeply regret the decision of some to use the events this week to attack the state of Israel, and in particular to accuse Israel of being “an apartheid regime”.  Israel’s record on human rights, respect for the rule of law, and in particular its support of gay and lesbian rights stands as a notable exception to the practice elsewhere in the Middle East, where many countries still consider homosexuality to be a crime, in some cases punishable by death, where democratic elections are still non-existent, and respect for independent courts and the rule of law unknown.”

Few in Canada know better how to recognize oppression, prejudice and segregation than the Canadian Gay and Lesbian community. When it comes to human rights violations, the gay community knows what that means. So it seems odd that Mr. Rae would decide to lecture them on the subject.

Moreover, it is not helpful to make comparisons between the State of Israel and its neighbours with respect to the question of gender equality and gay rights. Unlike its neighbours, Israel is a western-style, settler state, with deep societal roots in Europe and North America. Millions of Israelis have their cultural and family origins in the West. So it’s quite normal to expect their government to adhere to certain western standards. It’s no surprise that Israel supports and approves of Homosexual Rights. In fact it would be surprising if Israel did not support those rights.

It’s my view, as well as the view of many other Canadians and not a few distinguished Israeli scholars such as Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim and other internationally respected public figures, that Israel is indeed a State that occupies, oppresses and segregates those whom it regards as threatening or inferior, specifically, the Palestinian Arabs.

In fact Avrum Burg, who was the Speaker of the 15th Knesset, Chairman of the Jewish Agency and also head of the World Zionist Council, has called for an end to Israeli occupation and settlement expansion; he advocates a complete withdrawal from all occupied territory.

Speaker Burg has written that, “The Israeli nation today rests on…foundations of oppression and injustice”. Would you characterize Avrum Burg as an anti-Semite?

Perhaps, Mr. Rae, it’s not “Apartheid” in the strict definition of that term.

Perhaps it’s something else. We know that among many right-wing Israeli politicians, there is open talk of schemes to “transfer” Palestinians from their own land to Jordan and/or other neighbouring Arab countries.

Would you approve of that? Of course you wouldn’t, because it would be morally repugnant. Even Daniel Pipes, an ardent supporter of Israel agrees such an act would be inflammatory.

According to news reports, all across Israel you can see alarming graffiti that reads, ‘Arabs out’—like Juden raus. Not very pleasant is it? Those who care – say that although such graffiti is written by hoodlums and extremists – the municipalities on whose walls it is written, often do not bother to erase it. By not speaking out against such outrages, we give them tacit approval.

(In the 1930’s we also failed to speak out.)

Of course you would not approve such an action because you know very well it is even worse than morally repugnant.

Your failure, like that of so many others, to grasp the nettle of exposing the illegal and reprehensible aspects of Israeli behaviour will make achieving a peace deal increasingly difficult. It will reinforce present Israeli  policy, which certainly flirts with and borders on Apartheid, as even Defence Minister Ehud Barak has suggested.

Until you begin to speak out in support of fundamental truth and justice, Mr. Rae, your words of support for gender equality, are merely the usual hollow political posturing and begging for support…just a bunch of empty words.

And with respect to the Middle East, about all we do know of your policy position is that apparently Israel can do no wrong. Many thousands of Israelis would disagree with you. They would say that you’re mistaken to criticise a group for attacking Israeli policies that impose collective punishment on a whole people and systematically expropriate (steal) their lands.

Just take a look at the maps.

Even Anthony Cordesman, a staunch supporter of Israel and one of America’s foremost security experts, calls Israel a “strategic liability”, given the behaviour of its government.

I know you read the New York Times Mr Rae…I’ve watched you leafing though it.

It must have galled you to read Nicholas Kristoff’s recent columns…http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/opinion/01kristof.html?_r=1

When you become more tuned in to what is right and wrong in this world and when you develop a more advanced standard of personal morals and ethics, then you will deserve to be listened to and heeded as a Member of the Canadian Parliament.

At the moment, you are speaking with a forked tongue.

Subtitle: “Pinning the Tail on the Other Donkey”

What follows, is the full text of Jack Layton’s “reply” to the open letter I sent him and other political leaders in defence of Libby Davies’ criticism of Israel. (You’ll notice he doesn’t bother to address me personally…not that it matters).

Jack Layton, Leader NDP Canada

Thank you for your message, I appreciate you taking the time to send us
your comments.

First, let me be clear that the position of the NDP with regard to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East has not changed, a position that was democratically adopted at a Convention of our delegates from across Canada.  Our party has always been principled and constructive in how it addresses this complex issue; we recognize the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon borders. We are committed to working with like-minded allies in the region to make concrete and lasting progress toward peace. (more…)

The Unkindest Death of All

There’s anguish today on all fronts.

BP is still wrecking an ecosystem; Protesters are wrecking Toronto; and Politicians are wrecking the world. And not only that -

Now the guys out in South Asia – Afghanistan to be precise – are really wondering just what it’s all about.

After ten years, President Hamid Karzai wants to do a deal with the Taliban.

That’s nothing new really, but – this morning I read in The New York Times, that “Karzai is giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and he is opening up the old schisms.” That’s a quote from a man named Rehman Oghly, an Uzbek member of the Afghan Parliament and once a member of an anti-Taliban militia. “If he wants to bring in the Taliban, and they begin to use force, then we will go back to civil war and Afghanistan will be split.”

Hmmm…Afghanistan being “split” is nothing new either.

What is new,  is that these days, some American soldiers are asking what the heck they’re over there for and is it worth the risk. We don’t know much about what Canadian soldiers are saying…but it can’t be a whole lot different. Almost a decade and still the same old scene only worse. As one U.S. soldier told the Times:  “If we are here for a year and don’t fire one round, I’m happy. I’ve got two boys waiting for me that I want to go back home and be a dad to.” (New York Times)

I’m sure that our Canadian soldiers – like their American buddies – would rather stay in the barracks than go out on patrol. It’s dangerous out there man and life is fragile.

Soldiers have families and they’ed rather be at home fighting the oil catastrophe than waiting for a roadside bomb to blow them up. Afghanistan just isn’t worth it.

Of course anyone with half a brain has been saying this for years. But leaders need body counts; they need soldiers to get killed and kids need to be orphaned, just to prove it was all worth it.

Karzai is apparently tired of war. (That’s why his life is fragile)

The head of the U.S. military doesn’t like this situation one bit (after all, he needs a job). ” “It has the potential to really tear this country apart,” Admiral Mullen said in an interview. “That’s not what we are going to permit.”

I wonder what Lyndon Johnson would say if he were still walking around.

“This government is clearly out of touch with the majority of Canadians,”

(Kingston City Councillor – Rob Matheson, who sponsored the June 15 motion.)

This issue is not about politics, it’s about common sense, logic, rationality and human decency, all of which appear to be in short supply at the HQ of the General Harper forces.

• Recidivism at our prison farms is much lower than in the regular system.
• More and better rehabilitation takes place.
• The farms supply fresh, wholesome produce to the prison system.
• Prisoners get fresh air, exercise, discipline and responsibility, all of which lower the chances of re-offending.

Excellent skills such as animal husbandry, welding, machinery repair are taught and are marketable outside the prison system.

And yet despite all this and a great deal more, the Harper Conservatives are plowing ahead with the destruction of these farms.

And they are doing it against the wishes of Canadians, against common sense and against the advice of both correctional officers and experts in law enforcement.

Check out this report from the City of Kingston.

“Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.”

The paragraph above is from a lengthy article by Professor Peyton Lyon, a distinguished Canadian scholar.

Dr. Lyon is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Carleton University. He was a Rhodes Scholar, and obtained his D.Phil. from Oxford University. He served in the RCAF from 1940 to 1945.

Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae, like Dr. Lyon, is also a Rhodes Scholar.

The difference between the two men is not related to their intelligence, but rather to their respective ability to analyse and discuss policy in ways that are logical and that make sense, in the interests of our country.

What I’m linking to here is a readable dissertation by Dr. Lyon that explores, defines and explains the Canada/Israel relationship and the pressures that have formed it. Personally, I find it painful to write this. I find it sad that our government has found it acceptable to capitulate to pressure by advocates for another country.

In fact, it’s unthinkable that Canada should be held hostage to a foreign government in terms of the formation of the policies our country pursues.

And it’s not just Stephen Harper’s Conservatives that do this, the Liberal Party and the NDP are equally culpable. Take a bow, Mr. Mulcair.

So in spite of the pain I feel, or perhaps because of it, I am sharing Dr. Lyon’s remarkable essay on the Israeli Lobby. (more…)