Ignatieff says Israel must be allowed to defend itself
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says Israel is justified in taking military action to defend itself against attacks by Hamas from the Gaza Strip."Canada has to support the right of a democratic country to defend itself," he told reporters in Halifax today after speaking to a forum of business leaders on the economy.
"Israel has been attacked from Gaza, not just last year, but for almost 10 years. They evacuated from Gaza so there is no occupation in Gaza."
I dealt with the claim that there's no occupation in Gaza yesterday. I find it interesting that the only time Ignatieff uses the word "occupation" in discussing the issue is to deny that there is one.
Since this is the newly minted Liberal leader and not the prime minister who's already demonstrated that whatever the U.S.says goes in the region, let me try to lose my weary cynicism and become freshly enthusiastic for just a moment: what a steaming load of fucking bullshit!
By leaving out the occupation which has been ongoing in one form or another for 41 years, you can conveniently ignore the possibility that the violence directed towards Israel is actually resistance to that occupation. You can ignore the possibility that if Palestinians have embraced a party such as Hamas it's because the daily violence and humiliation they've suffered at the hands of the occupiers has left them desperate for anyone who will stand up for them. You can pretend that Israel is defending itself instead of defending an illegal occupation that should have ended decades ago. And it probably would have ended decades ago except that the United States runs interference for Israel on the UN Security Council and has spent billions arming the IDF and the IAF so that Israel can slowly but surely lay claim to all the fresh water and arable land in the occupied territories. If they were prepared to sacrifice a little of that in Gaza to create an open air prison, maybe it's because the West Bank is the greater prize.
I guess we can forget ever having a foreign policy that involves disagreeing with the United States. Let's recall that Ignatieff didn't issue his mea culpa on Iraq until it became clear that it was safe to do so. American progressives don't call him a member of the Wanker Caucus for nothing.
Bob Rae would have been no better. I miss Jean Chretien, despite his crazy ways.
Ignatieff isn't the wanker of the day. The wanker of the day is the liberal who disagrees with what Ignatieff is saying but continues to support the Liberal Party instead of the NDP.
I view Ignatieff as one of the old boys who plays the party games.
One person I trust is David Orchard.Organic farmers are much more down to earth.
Wow Iggy and Kent, Liberals and Cons in the same article saying the same thing. Is this a sign?
I wonder if the big teevee stations will jump on CNN's bandwagon? I wonder who really broke the ceasefire? Sanchez is a bigmouth, but telling the truth? I dunno, it scares me.
CNN's Rick Sanchez on who broke the ceasefire
Empire-lite, torture-lite, embed plausible deniability in everything you ever write -- that Ignatieff?
He's becoming very coarse in the way he talks, too. Canada shouldn't "touch Hamas with a ten-foot pole"?
We are sunk.
Oh -- there's Antonia. I agree -- I miss Chretien too. The man actually cared about the country and democracy, and he wasn't a manufactured product. Lord save us from the mouthpieces. (Could someone teach them all the difference between "ceasefire" and "truce" or "armistice"? I mean, just because Condi Rice doesn't know it and they're all parroting her doesn't mean they have to parrot quite so obviously.)
"A steaming load of f__king bullshit?" Look, chum, don't sugar coat it. There are several youtube clips circulating today of a much younger Ignatieff interviewing Trudeau. I'll bet PET is rolling in his grave right now to hear the leader of his party, his successor, throwing his and the Liberal Party's integrity out the window.
This could prove interesting: The Guardian has spoken to three people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. - Link
pogge, I don't know if I've ever seen you so fired up! Good on ya, man! I'm sending a copy of your post to Iggy and Jack and Gilles.
"The wanker of the day is the liberal who disagrees with what Ignatieff is saying but continues to support the Liberal Party instead of the NDP."
I'd consider it, Bob, except there's plenty of crap that comes out of Jack's mouth that I disagree with as well. So until the Messiah comes, I'm just going to keep working on these guys for a while. If that's ok with you, of course.
Remember Iggy was invited back to take over in '04-'05, lest we forget. Don't remember that? Well it's around, somewhere. Ask Garth. And Iggy did say "He was the better candidate with the better machine." when he spoke about BushCo. Machines/Plugs. No messiah, just wankers.
"what a steaming load of fucking bullshit!"
Couldn't have said it better myself! Iggy=Harper. They are now interchangeable. At least in foreign affairs.
I just came from reading the same Guardian story Gene links to, and my first thought was of Iggy -- great timing, Iggy, you total twit.
If you want to read a great, critical academic review of Ignatieff, see:
David McNally, "Imperial Narcissim: Michael Ignatieff's Apologies for Empire," in The New Imperialists: Ideologies of Empire, ed. Colin Mooers. Oxford: OneWorld Publications, pp. 87-110.
mcnally, who is a professor at york, shreds ignatieff to pieces.
Speaking of American progressives, Howard Zinn alluded to the Human Rights Professor in a recent talk on War & Social justice broadcast on Democracy Now!
Here's the quotation:
"There was a British empire. There was a Russian empire. There was a German empire and a Japanese empire and a French and a Belgian empire, the Dutch empire and the Spanish empire. And now there’s the American empire. And our empire—and when we look at those empires, we say, “Oh, imperialism! But our empire, no.” There was one sort of scholar who wrote in the New York Times, he said, “We are an empire lite.” Lite? Tell that to the people of Iraq. Tell that to the people in Afghanistan. You know, we are an empire lite? No, we are heavy."
Today, he could add to the "sort of scholar," "Tell that to the Palestinians in Gaza."
No occupation? When you block all land, sea and air access to a small region like Gaza, it's an occupation even if that disingenuous miscreant chooses to deny it.
Iggy, the "humanitarian" war monger. What a pathetic, sniveling opportunist.
A month ago today, I was taken to task for saying - somewhat extravagantly - that the Liberals and NDP tended to reflexively "hate" and "despise" one another; word choices which were troubling and revealing evidence of my mindset.
Plus ca change. "You fill me full of fear and pity. What a tragedy you are."
Do I need to identify the Liberals who are just as disappointed and upset with Ignatieff's stand on this as I am? If you're trying to make this out to be strictly a matter of Liberals vs. Dippers then you're really not paying attention.
Jason, I think you should be more concerned about what's happening within at least a small part of the Liberal party. Here's a Liberal blogger announcing that he's been kicked off the Liblogs aggregator because of the way he's chosen to cover this issue. Needless to say, his position on it is vastly different than Michael Ignatieff's (or Jason Cherniak's who runs Liblogs). This blogger joins two other Liberals who have resigned because of the way Cherniak has attempted to enforce the party line.