Stand up for Libby Davies - part 2

George Victor wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Well, there you go. Is Jack going to finally stand up on his hind legs and attack Harper for this crude and evil attack on one of his members? Harper is a terrorist and a racist.

Yes, FM.  But how would that language look "out there" disseminated among the average masses?  Perhaps you could find language for him that would not lose him too many votes in the upcoming elections?

Sure. How about this ...

"For Mr. Harper to deride an MP respected and known for her hard work, compassion, and dedication to human rights as a "terrorist" is less surprising than it is offensive. Our Prime Minister stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the man who gave orders to his military to attack a peace convoy on the high seas. The same man who has called for the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population. The same man who leads a nation accused of war crimes. As well, our Prime Minister has left Canadians to languish in foreign jails. He has abused the laws of the land and state institutions to silence those with whom he disagrees. He has sought to corrupt parliament and Canada's democratic tradition. He has brought into disrepute and politicized the office of the Governor General. He has gagged and intimidated scientists and bureaucrats whose jobs are to safeguard Canadians. He  has militarized the streets of Toronto to silence those who would speak to the leaders of the world's leading democratic nations. Our Prime Minister has run from parliament, and sought to cover-up possible crimes by his own government in turning suspects over to an Afghanistan regime that tortures prisoners and permits the rape of women by their husbands. Stephen Harper, lacking courage, compassion, or a sense of justice has not the moral or ethical right to be critical of anyone. To bandy about the word "terrorist" in an attempt to impose silence speaks more to the gutter from which Stephen Harper has emerged than it does a principled and decent politician such as Libby Davies. I apologize that I must even acknowledge such a crass and baseless smear from such a crass and classless man, but in the interest of open dialogue, in a free and democratic society, the right to free expression must be defended from those, like Stephen Harper, who would brush aside such rights in the interests of ideological dogmatism. "

He can have all or any part of that for free.

You just earned a spot in the babble Hall of Fame for that, F. Mess.

Aw shucks.

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

I saw the  interview, it  was horrible.  That little bourgeois  asshole had no right to ambush Libby like that.  At the  same  time,  this  is an  indication  that  my party has abandoned  it's principals.   Smiling  Jack shouldn't codemn  a  legitimate  criticism  of  Israeli  brutality.

At the same time it wasn't exactly an "ambush". He was being polite and asking reasonable questions. The problem is more with the way the reportage of her comments is so totally out of synch with what was actually said. If you just read the newspaper accounts - you'd think that she had called for all Israelis to be driven into a crocodile infested said and killed - when in fact she didn't say anything remotely like that. Jack did not "condemn legitimate criticism of Israeli brutality". He made amends for her making a comment that could easily be twisted into sounding like she was against a two-state solution in the Middle East.

If I might digress from the rants to talk about something else Libby said, I must object to her statement that the occupation was "the longest in the world." Why do so many people ignore Kashmir, when the Kashmir conflict is the root of the Islamist irregulars that we now call Al Qaeda?

According to the instruments of accession relating to the Partition of India, the rulers of princely states were to be given the choice of either acceding to India or Pakistan, or remaining independent. When India requested the Hyderabad Government to sign the instrument of accession, the Nizam refused and instead declared Hyderabad as an independent nation on 15 August 1947, the same day that India became independent. When Kashmir's ruler chose India, India accepted, but in Hyderabad India invaded in September 1948 and secured Hyderabad's surrender after 1,863 Hyderbadis were killed.

Meanwhile, in Kashmir, Pathan tribal irregulars (sound familiar?) had entered Kashmir in support of a Muslim revolution against the Maharaja (as they would do again from time to time over the next 60-plus years). The princely state defenses quickly collapsed in the face of the assault; some individuals and units joining the Azad Kashmir (Free Kashmir) forces. The Maharaja fled to Jammu on October 25, 1947, and the next day signed the instrument of accession to India. The Governor-General of India, on conditionally accepting the Instrument of Accession wrote: "consistently with their policy that in the case of any state where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state." It never was. The objective of the initial Indian invasion that fall was to capture control of Srinigar and the Kashmir valley. That began the occupation of Kashmir. Indian military action continued. The UN resolution of April 21, 1948, envisaged a cease-fire, the withdrawal of all outside forces from the state, and a plebiscite under the control of an administrator who would be nominated by the Secretary General. For negotiating the details of the plan, the council constituted a five-member commission known as "United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan," (UNCIP) to implement the resolution. It never was.

For Israel/Palestine, the case for the peaceful two-state solution depends on the theory that Palestine will accept the 1949 Armistice line (the "Green Line") as the boundary, and not try to roll history back even further. Palestine's friends do it no favour if they raise doubts about that assumption. So the occupation is from 1956.

But even if it goes back to the 1949 Armistice, Kashmir's was a year earlier.

Good Catch!  Maybe Mulclair and Layton could demand Libby make another apology and retraction!!!

The case for the two state solution has been pretty much destroyed by Israel's ongoing lebensraum settler policy.  I think it really comes down to whether the people in what is currently Israel and the Occupied Territories can overthrow the current racist regime and institutions and create a new polity that respects the human rights of all it's citizens.

Pretending that the ethnic cleansing in 1948 was somehow more moral than what happened in 1967 doesn't do anyone any favours. 

I'm sure there are plenty of occupations in the world that could be defined as being much longer than Kashmir or the Israeli occupied territories - Tibet has been occupied by China since 1950.

Some Quebec nationalists would contend that Quebec has been occupied by the British Empire and its step-child the Dominion of Canada since 1759!

The European occupation of the Americas has gone on for over 500 years. How many centuries have the Basques been occupied by Spain and France?

Scotland has been "occupied" by the English since 1707! and i could go on ad nauseum.

Virtually every single solitary national boundary in the world was created through war and/or conflict.

I guess the lesson is - if you are flustered and unprepared and have someone who is likely to be hostile trying to get you to give nuanced answers to complex questions while a camera is rolling - maybe its time to say "no comment".

At the same time it wasn't exactly an "ambush". He was being polite and asking reasonable questions. The problem is more with the way the reportage of her comments is so totally out of synch with what was actually said. If you just read the newspaper accounts - you'd think that she had called for all Israelis to be driven into a crocodile infested said and killed - when in fact she didn't say anything remotely like that. Jack did not "condemn legitimate criticism of Israeli brutality". He made amends for her making a comment that could easily be twisted into sounding like she was against a two-state solution in the Middle East.

Maybe not. He was annoyingly persistant though, and she was clearly unprepared. He backed her into a corner.   It was very sad to see.   

Stockholm wrote:

what would be a more accurate description of the protest?

I believe the protesters in the video were holding a sign that read ``against Israelie occupation``

Was Nelson Mandela anti-South Africa prior to 1990

Michelle wrote:

So, what, now Libby's not allowed to make any more statements on the Middle East, has to stop all her public activism on behalf of Palestinians?

NDP members could change the parties policies. The root of this "Libby video controversy" is that a few of the NDP's policies diverge from the views of most NDP supporters.

People who support Libby should look in the mirror and see themselves as being the solution. They should press the NDP to change their policies. Libby's supporters who are not members of the NDP could buy memberships and help create a party that Libby can better work within.

As Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world."

JKR wrote:

vaudree wrote:

RE:Note that one Conservative blogger on Twitter is now calling for someone to register the domain name "hezbolibby.com", ....

Hezbolibby?

Is that supposed to be a combination of Libby's name with with the words Hezbollah and Lezbo?

The mindset of some Conservatives is really pathetic.

Scarier thought yet...will this lead to a Tory-Likudnik rock festival called "Hezbolibbypalooza"?  You know somebody has to be thinking it, somewhere.

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

I thought Al Qaeda started in Afganistan with the CIA backed insurgency against the Soviets.  Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. Islamist irregulars and/or insurgents in and around Pakistan have a much longer history, which you should read up on.

To be clear: I admire modern India, the world's largest democracy, in many ways; it is often a very progressive state and country. I also admire many things about Israel. But the occupation of Kashmir, and the occupation of the West Bank, have caused much of the conflicts plaguing the world today.

Quote:

Unfortunately, FPTP only works well when there are only two strong parties contesting a constituency.

This is a bit of thread drift but I couldn't let it pass. I think that this is a bit of a myth. FPTP still results in the "losers" going without representation. Here's a simple hypothetical which I've posted before. 

Let's say there are 100% seats and two parties. If Party A gets 51% of the voters in all 100 ridings, they win every seat while 49% of voters go without any representation. The solution to FPTP is PR, not reducing the number of parties. 

She can describe her experiences as much as she wants - but when it comes to actual policy on the Middle East - she has to stick to the NDP policy - which shouldn't be a problem since she keeps saying she agrees with it.

If Libby weren't already an MP, I wonder if she would be barred from running for the nomination like one wannabe candidate in St. Pauls. Will she be "Guergis"ed to prevent the media from forcing the leader to spend his valuable campaign time dealing Libby's comments on the Middle East? 

Has the time come to found a Canadian RESPECT Party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESPECT_The_Unity_Coalition

a GREAT  deal of that huffing and puffing about how serious a mistake Libby made is posturing to make the issue go away.

You all dont care whether its 'just' posturing or not- and I respect that difference. But I am going to dispute huffing and puffing of turning into an even bigger mountain than it is. We're never going to agree on that. So be it.

I already know you don't care whether Libby would agree with my understanding- and not under duress either. So I can't think thats harsh on your part. But the voice you are hoping for from Libby isn't going to be there, nor has it been. Basically, you all want that she would have been willing to deliberately and explicitly set in motion what we all know she did inadvertently.

Not going to happen. And not because she is being whipped by her colleagues. Never would have happened deliberately.

"Dear Jack, You are doing the right (or should I say left) thing on the Afghanistan prisoner cover-up, and I just can't believe you won't stand up for Libby now. As I wrote to my former student Judy Wasylycia-Leis a few months ago, it was wrong of her to join Kenney and Cotler on their McCarthyite committee.  As you saw when this came back to bite even Cotler in the rear, there is no way one can win on this one except by refusing to be intimidated by bullies whose sole aim is to repress legitimate dissent in relation to the Israel-Palestine issue. Even Judy's voters in my old neighbourhood of North Winnipeg will understand this if they are reminded of the traditional Jewish value of 'rachmones'. It is increasingly evident that those who speak in an 'Israel right or wrong' manner are not genuinely reflecting the views of most Jewish people in North America.
Best regards,
Leo"  

Leo Panitch claims to represent his old neighbourhood of North Winnipeg. What he conveniently forgets is that most Northend Winnipeg Jews were Labour Zionist and Panitch himself is a graduate of the I.L. Peretz School which was Labour Zionist. To employ a Jewish (Yiddish) phrase, Leo and his friends should stop "kvetching" about Israel and be mindful of the traditional Jewish value of "lashan hara". If anything is evident about North American Jews, it is that those who seek to demonize and delegitimize Israel are not genuinely reflecting the views of most Jewish people in North America.

"Lashon hara" = the blue wall of silence.  Or, "don't air our disagreements in front of the Gentiles."  Unfortunately, in this instance, too much "lashon hara" has led to the situation we're in today.  Maybe if more North American Jews had spoken out sooner, we wouldn't have the illegal colonization in the west bank and East Jerusalem we have today.

Kish mir in tuchus, Unionist.

(That's classic Yiddish for: What's a cretin like you doing in a place like this?)

No kidding.  It IS ridiculous.  I want to know how my MP stands on issues.  And I shouldn't have to live in the Leader's riding (even though, by coincidence, I do now) to find out.

You guys are playing pretty fast and loose with the Yiddish translations.