This is the kind of thing that bothers me about him.
In the Toronto Star today, this man Ignatieff is quoted as follows with respect to the problems between Israel and the Palestinians.
“We can’t touch Hamas with a 10-foot pole…We cannot have Canada-Hamas relations until Hamas changes its position. And this isn’t just about the Middle East here. Canada can’t have relations with political groups which advocate and employ terrorist methods against civilians.” But he said he hopes non-governmental aid groups can continue to work with the Palestinians.
What a glib “sound-bite-friendly” approach. He neglects to remember that during Trudeau’s time as Prime Minister we had multi-level contacts with the PLO, a group characterized at the time as terrorist, employing “terrorist methods”.
This glibness is not the kind of creative, made-in-Canada approach I want from a leader. I want a leader who offers a workable solution or at least a viable plan. I want a leader who is informed about these matters. I want one who reads newspapers or at least has people around him who do. I want a leader with a real platform, not one who can only utter platitudes. I want a real leader, not an opportunist.
On this particular issue, Ignatieff displays a flat, uninteresting and uncreative attitude. His comments offer nothing beyond what hundreds of others have said.
I find it curious that a man who claims such a huge swath of territory in the realm of foreign policy and international affairs has such a paucity of really good ideas on that score. All he offers is more of what everyone else is offering…nothing new.
My advice to any leadership candidate on this particular matter would be the following.
First- yes…make clear that there can’t be the traditional diplomatic relationship between Canada and Hamas, as long as the Hamas position is that Israel must be destroyed. But at the same time make clear too…that Canada will work through the United Nations to establish and support channels through which food, and other types of aid could be sent to the Palestinian people who are presently in such desperate straits. In fact Canada could offer to lead such an effort. But to punish Hamas by punishing the people is just idiocy.
Second- Canada could lead an effort at establishing some sort of dialogue with Hamas; we could offer to chair a group including Russia, China and a group of willing European nations…to work at helping Hamas recognize that it must change its charter.
Again, his statement shows how out of touch he is. Even in Israel, there are widespread calls for support and aid to the Palestinians, regardless of Hamas.
Ignatieff is nothing but a crass opportunist, pure and simple.
Hi Jim;
Yes, you are right about your observation and if Canada can’t have relationships with countries that use terrorist techniques, torture, albeit “light” then why are we in a coalition in Afghanistan with the U.S. and Great Britain? I believe we should stick to our year commitment and then move on to places like Darfur or similar. I also liked your idea of taking more of a role in the U.N. in just what you referred to regarding China, Russia, and other European Countries. Perhaps South American Countries too if on the same wave length. All the U.S. is doing right now is creating more fear, terror, and hate by using the aggressive tactics they seem to be known for. It has never worked and has caused only pain and suffering for the poor and less fortunate in the Countries they sanction, illegally invade, and occupy. I would like to see Canada become a stronger voice for human rights issues in the U.N. and to not be afraid to stand up in the fashion that Trudeau or Lester B would have in this situation. With passion too, not that droll, controlled, elite, above you all, confusing position many politicians today are exhorting. Keep up the great writing, Jim.
I don’t understand why humanitarian work (i.e. food/medicine) could not be carried out directly with the proletariat. Would that not build goodwill with the average person? I may be naive but it appears to me that at least some form of engagement directed toward the children is preferential to total isolation. With embargoes (i.e. Cuba) only the weakest and most innocent are hurt. Furthermore, they just build long term resentment.
Hmmm. Do you seriously think that Ignatieff would be better served by a subtly nuanced, more complex approach regarding this particular issue?
When talking about not touching Hamas with a 10 foot barge pole, he was referring to relations at a diplomatic level. That you don’t dispute. He also indicated support for various alternatives that effectively circumvent financial sanctions delivering aid via NGO’s. That you support.
So, it would seem that your fault with Ignatieff here is that he didn’t propose some cockeyed grand diplomatic scheme to resolve the intractable deadlock between Israel and Palestine. And for this you blast him as “out of touch” and a label him a “crass opportunist.” More than a little unfair, I’d say.
What I am saying here…and what seems to get lost on you RT, is that instead of parrotting everyone else on this issue…I’d like a leader to do a little risk-taking and propose dialogue with Hamas…even if that dialogue is conducted through unofficial channels.
Simple. Original.
Unofficial channels…hmmm… Yeah, that’ll work.
it’s worked before in other issues just as serious as this one.