By now I'm accustomed to pundits like Rosie DiManno mindlessly repeating the received wisdom that any criticism of the state of Israel is indistinguishable from anti-semitism. But what really caught my eye in her reporting on the speeches at the Canadian Jewish Congress celebration held in Toronto yesterday evening was her quote from Michael Ignatieff, who said of Iran (among other things):
This is a state seeking weapons of mass destruction.
It's interesting that someone who finally had to issue a mea culpa in the matter of an invasion of Iraq based on lies about weapons of mass destruction would be so quick to repeat such an accusation. It's interesting that the IAEA inspectors who are actually on the ground in Iran can find no evidence of a nuclear weapons program and yet Ignatieff can see it all the way from Toronto.
Given the context in which this is being said — the rhetoric emanating from Benjamin Netanyahu's government threatening a military strike on Iran — Ignatieff's comment is dangerous and completely irresponsible. I expect this from the Conservatives but I keep hoping the Liberals will represent at least a marginal improvement.
It's also distressing to read that, once again, a U.S. administration is ignoring its own NIE and keeping the propaganda about WMD alive. Shades of Cheney's little shop of horrors.
And you expected what, objectivity? From Iggy? On anything relating to Israel?
For such an educated man, this guy is a genuine bonehead. The IgLibs can swoon over this character all they want but he's just about everything that Trudeau rebuked. He's a man of plainly revealed low courage and remarkably shallow vision.
..and Iggy's previous statement was a distinctly "non culpa" mea culpa. He does not believe for one second he was wrong to say what he did about Iraq. His moral compass points in whatever direction seems expedient today. If that means bombing the crap out of some Iranian kids because AIPAC has decided that's a great idea, so be it!
The entirety of Ignatieff's speech can be found here:
Link.
He has backed away from support for a two-state solution, judging by this comment:
Last week I met Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. I told him that Canadians of all parties stand ready to help a Palestinian state with humanitarian aid, technical assistance, and governance reform. But there was a big "if": Canada can only help if Israel's right to exist is guaranteed by all the governments in the region, and if she is forever safe from terror.
Apparently, Ignatieff has laid on Abbas the responsibility to guarantee not only the diplomatic behaviour of every other regional government in the Middle East, but also the responsibility to ensure that Israel is "forever" [sic] free from terror.
Can anyone anywhere guarantee that any state is "forever" safe from terror?
With Michael Ignatieff's being as intelligent as we're all told he is, I'm wondering if I must conclude that a potential Liberal government has--in the person of Michael Ignatieff--laid on the Palestinians conditions for support of a two-state solution that cannot possibly be met.
And so I wonder if the Liberal Party has indeed backed away from a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem.
Can anyone anywhere guarantee that any state is "forever" safe from terror?
No. But this has been SOP in the Middle East. The Israelis seem to have three main tactics:
1. Undermine the Palestinians' representative and then complain that there is no one to negotiate with.
2. Demand that the Palestinians make all the concessions before even getting to the bargaining table.
3. Set the bar so high that the Palestinians can't possibly reach it.
They employ one of these for a while and then give it a rest by moving to the next one. And round and round we go.
Thanks for the link to the Ignatieff speech.