At least one Liberal commentator has suggested recently that I ought to join the NDP. This character was one who seemed to think that being "Liberal" means toeing the line or at least the party line as defined by the leader, Mr. Ignatieff.
In particular this would mean condemning the feeble rocket attacks out of Gaza and kneeling to pledge unquestioning fealty to Israel.
Bugger that!
If today's Liberal Party and its leadership has any interest in living up to the name, it's time to take a stand on the excesses underway in Gaza.
We don't have to be pro-Israel or pro-Hamas or anti-Israel or anti-Hamas. Both sides have plenty of blood on their hands and Israel has a lot of motives for bombing the hell out of the people of Gaza that have nothing to do with self-defence.
Ignatieff's stand on the Palestinian crisis is as wrong-headed as his endorsement of the conquest and occupation of Iraq. He's wrong and he's bright enough that he ought to know better.
Somehow I don't believe that the Liberal Party's facile policy on Gaza has as much to do with realities on the ground in the Occupied Territories as it does with political expediency. I think we've thrown our support to Israel because we think that's necessary to win seats whenever the next election is called.
I am a lifelong Liberal. I came of voting age as Pierre Trudeau was first leading the party into a general election. I have stayed with the party ever since but only because I felt it was the one that most exemplified my beliefs.
I have not always embraced my party's views. Only an idiot would think that all good ideas are Liberal and all bad ideas are Conservative or New Democrat. We, the Liberal Party of Canada, have had some bad ideas of our own. Some policies put forward over the past four decades by New Democrats or Conservatives were actually better than our own. There have been times when we have acted out of political expedience but rarely has the party benefitted from it.
I believe it is my right to oppose Liberal Party policies that I believe to be wrong-headed. I believe it is the duty of every other Liberal to accept my right to dissent even if they don't agree with me.
We have a healthy coterie of intolerants within our own ranks. Every party does. I'm talking about people who seem to believe that the party line, as defined by the leader of the day, must bind our consciences. The "my way or the highway" crowd is a blight on any party. It stifles debate and stagnates vision.
Before Mr. Ignatieff took the reins of Liberal Party power I said I would support him while he had a reasonable opportunity to earn my support. I've not given up on him yet but on this issue I have found him pretty disappointing.
16 comments:
I would be careful who you state are Liberals. Since those folks decided to post as anonymous posters, they could be Conservative provocateurs, for all you know.
We should support the return of a balanced view of the Middle East such as what Lloyd Axworthy advocated. That means being critical of all sides if all sides warrant it. I think in this particular situation, all sides do warrant some.
Said commenter made the same suggestion at my place. It's facile at best and idiotic at worse.
Indeed, the party is one that holds varying degrees of views on many subjects and that is how I want to see the party go forward. To be frank, I wouldn't belong to a party that forced it's members to adhere to only one view.
I too am waiting to hear more from Ignatieff on this subject
Lloyd Axworthy was a loser.
He was a failure as Foreign Minister.
He had a track record at the UN of toeing the non-democratic countries line on the Middle East.
For Axworthy it was all about trade and oil money and nothing about Principals and Values.
Paul Martin set the Party back on track.
Left wing apologists should head to the NDP.
The Liberal Party's future is in the Centre, embracing democracies, values and principals.
anon
It's morons like you that don't fit under any tent I want to be associated with.
I love the diversity of the Liberal Party, in many ways it's a microscosm of Canada as whole, minus the moonbats on the right. If people don't agree with a certain policy, far better to stay on board and argue the case.
In the case of Ignatieff, he was pretty outspoken before, and it cost him. Given that the leader of an opposition, in Canada, has absolutely no sway whatsoever, truth be told, his press releases are as pretty much completely irrelevant. Sad but true.
Anon is just another Con troll. If there is one party here who controls the message to every member it's the Cons.
"The "my way or the highway" crowd is a blight on any party." Harper to a T.
And Iggy's statement was no different than Harper's. That made me uncomfortable as it made the 2 of them interchangeable. No difference there. We shall see what happens but I don't hold any hope.
Don't forget, the Israel Lobby's pr machine has a full court press on this week in the western media to build support for the Gaza operation.
You should be flattered that your blog is deemed important enough to be worthy of their attention.
Good point Doz, I was wondering where all the cockroaches were coming from.
That's funny, didn't you tell me to "leave the party " when I suggested that I would be working against Micheal Ignatieff? In fairness there is a difference between working against someone and waiting to see what they do before you judge them which is what you were doing. I will give you that. I would suggest that this certainly wasn't the first time Iggy was wrong on foreign policy and it certainly won't be the last. The man just doesn't get it.
ps, I've read all your posts on the gaza conflict and think you are dead on.
Israel's supporters = cockroaches.
How mature of you.
Is the playground closed?
Anon,
Tis you who is showing "immaturity". You also sound like a bully.
Anon, you'll have to find another playground. Sorry but you're boring. Adios.
What is all this stuff posted by *aiyipianni*? I get the idea "winning" but it's hardly applicable to this post. Odd.
Post a Comment