The Liberal Leader is all too glib in blaming the Gaza slaughter on Hamas. Watch this and make up your own mind whether Michael Ignatieff, and his supporters, really deserve to be allowed to take over the Liberal Party of Canada.
Fuck me! There are forces at work within our Liberal Party that ought to make our stomachs churn. I think that any decent Liberals ought to be asking Michael Ignatieff to explain his blanket condemnation of the Palestinians and his blanket absolution of Israel's assault on Palestinians to explain this. This man has lashed not only Canada but the Liberal Party to this insane brutality. It's time he defended himself - before he dares seek the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1231888037.html
h/t Gene
24 comments:
Revisionists.
Liars.
But simple soudbytes play well with the populace.
I think that Iggy the Bloody and his coterie should be denounced and taken to task.
I thought I WAS trying to take him to task. No?
Speaking of self-defence, this seems pretty obvious:
An oppressor is not engaged in “self defense” when it uses force in order to annihilate resistance to its repression, and that holds true even if the form of resistance–attacks intended to kill civilians–is itself morally wrong.
The implicit assumption of the critics who focus only on the “proportionality” issue is that Israel has no choice but to use some kind of (proportional) force to end the Hamas attacks. But of course it has other choices–it can withdraw from Palestinian land, end the occupation and repression of the Palestinians, and offer all the Palestinians–including Hamas–the international consensus two-state solution. If Hamas continued attacking Israel even after such a settlement, then–and only then–would it have a true “right of self defense.” - Jerome Slater
Clearly he was being disingenuous, Hamas didn't fire the rockets.
But the attack on November 4th WAS an act of self defence. Hamas was constructing a tunnel under the boarder into Israel. Obviously Israel couldn't allow such a tunnerl to be compleyted
"But of course it has other choices–it can withdraw from Palestinian land"
Gaza was a test case for a full withdrawal, but it resulted in rockets being fired at Israel.
The Globe article sums it up pretty well:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090108.wcogee09/BNStory/specialComment
Looking back at my previous comment I realize that it makes me seem like I am opposed to a full withdrawal. I just want to make it clear that I am not opposed to a withdrawal. A withdrawal IS the final long term solution (which will have to include lots of negotiations on what the final boarders will be), I just don't think a withdrawal is as simple as Gene makes it seem.
How nice to see a reporter confronting a "guest". Why don't we have that here? She never let up & that should be the same here.
I'm so tired of lies, obfuscation & "fluff".
I'm also concerned as to where the Lib party may be going - in foreign policy. Something is really amiss & IF it is Iggy & crew & it doesn't get tempered then we are all in a mess.
MoS,
Kinsella has now added his blog to the Liblogs roll & his 3 posts that he's done already are all about his court case which is in process right now. All to his defense of course & continuing the defamation of the person who is suing him.
Thought you might like to know - if you didn't already.
I'm not sure if Kinsella added himself or Cherniak added him.
Rather strange given the bitterness in the past.
Iggy hired someone close to the PM...
The way it's going Liberals and Conservatives should merge as the differences are slight...
How nice to see a reporter confronting a "guest". Why don't we have that here? She never let up & that should be the same here.
Because shrieking moonbats on the right would be complaining of bias?
WTF,
Kinsella can't add himself, no one can. It has to be approved by someone 1st.
Now Kinsella has a short, biting post up on anti-Israel demonstrations.
So there's why he's now on the Liblogs. Approved by Cherniak for his anti Hamas views.
On Gaza withdrawal: There is a consensus among mainstream Israeli and Palestinian literati and pundits that the disengagement from Gaza is no more than a redeployment of Israeli forces and is not intended to change the status quo or bring an end to the occupation. - Ilan Pappe
Also lots of information on this site.
Dan, just how do you know that tunnel was being used for smuggling rockets? I can't say that's not true but I can say that the only source I've heard for that is the one that did the bombing, the one that broke the ceasefire and the side that's been lying its ass off time and again ever since.
I'm obviously a little more reluctant than you to take any Israeli claim at face value any more.
We know from the clip posted here that, up to the 4th, the Israeli government's position was that the four or five rockets fired out of Gaza each day weren't the doing of Hamas.
And what do you know of these tunnels, Dan? Could it be that they were being used for other purposes - such as relieving Israel's total blockade of humanitarian assistance - oh, you know, food and medicine? It strikes me that Hamas had an awful lot more to gain by smuggling in food and medicine for its desperate people than wasting time with ineffective rockets.
Please spare me the G&M articles. They're being driven by Marcus Gee, the same genius who stated unequivocally that Saddam had WMDs and who, like Ignatieff, was keen as hell on the conquest of Iraq. That guy and that paper have been bent ever since.
Hi Penlan, thanks for the heads up on Kinsella and liblogs. I think all they need now is to bring Levant on board and they're complete. I've always found Kinsella a nutjob going back to when he ran against Reform in North Vancouver. His campaign was no bad it virtually ensured the Reform win. I'm not suprised that Ignatieff has taken him on board.
"Dan, just how do you know that tunnel was being used for smuggling rockets?"
It wasn't for smuggling rockets (those tunnels are under the Egyptian boarder). Virtually all the goods smuggled into Gaza (be they weapons or basic supplies) are smuggled in through the boarder with Egypt, sometimes through tunnels, and sometimes with bribes.
This tunnel was built to capture hostages. This has been done in the past, most notably with the case of Gilad Shalit in 2006. Who is still being held hostage, and likely dead, as Hamas so longer finds him useful.
Abu Marzuk, deputy of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, said on the subject:
"Shalit may have been wounded, and he may not have been. The subject no longer interests us. We are not interested in his well-being at all, and we are not giving him any special guard since he is as good as a cat or less"
And there are various other security reasons why Israel can not allow such tunnels from Gaza into Israel to exist. Israel had to act to destroy that tunnel, it had no choice. Anyone else under the same circumstances would have done the same.
Re: the tunnels
Instead of spouting nonsense in response to the above comment regarding the tunnels in Gaza, I would refer to this article. It's from someone who is on the ground, and consequently I take it must know rather a bit more than us here in Canada. It's quite interesting.
That's an excellent article Gene. Thanks for that!
You're welcome, penlan! (I should say that I provided the link to the article as posted on my website only because the link to Jerusalem-located AIC had been going on and off during the past few weeks. I didn't want anyone interested in this issue to miss out on this. I find it be a real eye-opener. It does make sense.)
Regards!
First of all that article doesn't address the tunnel under the Israeli boarder that was the justification for the November 4th raid.
Secondly the article makes some very large errors (being on the ground isn't a guarantee of accuracy). It claims that the 'Israeli siege of Gaza has transformed the aid industry into one of Israel’s biggest exports'. Really? Has this guy even looked at the Israeli economy? It exports $50.37 billion (according to the CIA World fact book). And we all know that the amount of aid entering Gaza is small. Yet that article want me to believe that now the aid industry is one of Israel's largest exports?
Sorry that doesn't add up.
And there's more. The flight of shekels, would be insignificant given the little amount of smuggled good entering Gaza. Israeli travel abroad represents a leakage of shekels that is orders of magnitude larger than what is leaked out of the tunnels in Gaza. Yet there is no explanation why this leakage (a leakage experienced by all countries) is do devastating.
Not to mention the fact that this article completely ignores the massive costs of launching an attack such as this.
Shir Hever ...
I think I'm going to trust his expertise on the issue.
You don't even want to attempt to explain the issues I bring up?
Nah!
SD, not only am I not an expert, but this is not my reality. It does affect my life over here though and that's how I try to approach the subject. As for details & issues, as you may have noticed already, I rely heavily on links from people on the ground or from expert scholars who have studied the conflict for many many years.
So, it's not because I don't want to debate you. It's that I don't think I have the necessary expertise to do so.
All the best!
It's not so much that I want to debate you, but rather than I am concerned that you just dismissed my points out of hand.
What was stated in your link flies in the face of common sense. A little basic fact checking (like looking up Israel's total exports) is enough to make this clear.
May I suggest then that you send your critique to Shir Hever & perhaps letting us know about his response through a blogpost? I'll be very interested to read it.
@Gene
Thats definitely a good idea
I'll forward my criticism, and post a post over at my blog if I get a reply.
Post a Comment