Six times as many Palestinians killed over the last 72 hours than all projectiles fired at Israel have killed in 13 years.
*gets on tiptoes to whisper into dairy cow’s ear* why ya titty out
How short are you that you need to stand on your toes to talk to a cow?
Looks like we got ourselves a city slicker
How freaking talk are your cows? My cousins own a dairy farm and the cows are about chest height.
You sure talk a lot of shit for someone whose cousin has short cows
Battlestar Galactica + Green for sarahmanningg
Headline implies an equivalence in the amount of suffering, Israeli deaths come first, Israeli deaths get an actual number… also, why say “scores” of Palestinian deaths when you could say “hundreds”, is it because it sounds less?
From Syntagma Square, Athens.
OTTAWA - Some Canadian charitable organizations under recent audit for their political activities.
This is a seriously weird thing. One of these listed charities, Environmental Defence Canada Ltd, seems to be explicitly identified as audited because “Ethical” Oil complained.
It’s almost like the Harper administration wants to do everything it can to minimize activism against its policies.
CCPA is a research-based organization; I’m not sure what activism they think is coming directly out of there, except that its entire mandate is to conceptualize alternatives to current policy initiatives.
Six of these are classified as ‘environmental’ charities. Let’s not all express shock at once.
it’s long but read the whole thing if you’ve got time. do it
To understand the whole of European imperialism over the past 500 years and how Israel relates to it, one must understand the entire roots of the settler colonialist project. While Capitalism has mostly moved on to the use of allied comprador elites under neocolonialism, which tends to produce less of a native backlash, Israel remains one of the few settler colonialist societies on the face of the planet, alongside America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There are two major parts of settler colonialist mentality. The first is racism, the second is extermination.
Race became a part of the European mentality through the Reconquista. Prior to this, while most civilizations expressed xenophobia and some degree of ethnic superiority, they did not believe anything similar to the racism of the modern era. A Greek like Aristotle would denigrate the neighboring tribes as uncivilized barbarians, but would also claim that were a child of these tribes to be raised in Greece in the Greek manner, they would be just as good as any Greek. The idea that human inferiority was passed down through blood like genes was first theorized by Spanish nobles in the 15th century. They were fighting to take land from the most tolerant society in history up until that point, Al-Andalus, where Christians, Muslims and Jews came together in bazaars to trade. Fanatical in their opposition, the Spaniards would raise their arms to the sky so that their blue veins could be seen against their white skin, saying their blue blood was a sign of nobility. After the Reconquista was completed, they quickly acted to expel the Jews and Muslims from their territory that wouldn’t convert, a not atypical act also undertaken in nations like England. To ensure that none of the converts were secretly practicing their religion, the Spanish Inquisition was created, beginning a near hysteria about “crypto-Muslims” and crypto-Jews”. But what they also ran into was ownership over an entirely new non-Christian population, the millions of Native Americans across New Spain along with the millions of African slaves imported. This vast population was much too great to simply expel, so they had to be controlled by social ideology. The Mexican Inquisition was brought across the sea and given powers to persecute. At this point, 1571, it had been generations since the forced conversions, yet fears of these populations even traveling to New Spain to practice Islam and Judaism was still foremost in the minds of the Spanish rulers. It began to be alleged that religion could be passed on through blood, thus why the Inquisition was still necessitated. Laws were passed banning the marriage of Native Americans, Africans and Europeans. This couldn’t be enforced correctly because Europeans needed to marry women of other races to perpetuate their own bloodlines, and so a complex system of castes developed, called Castas. Limpieza de Sangre, or purity of blood, couldn’t be maintained realistically in New Spain, and so it fell to the English to improve on the concept.
Another crucible in which settler colonialism was forged was the Ulster Plantation. Not sharing a religion with the Irish meant that the early Spanish conception of racism based on religious conviction could be easily imported. Ireland was far more accessible to the English than the remote Americas, and English settlers could bring their entire family on the voyage thanks to ships requiring less room for supplies. As the Gaelic in Ulster were nomads, they were portrayed as primitive barbarians not using the land correctly. It was planned that, to prevent the threat of rebellion, whole sections would be carved piecemeal out of Ireland, made Gaelic-free, and divided up into tracts for English families to farm. These settlers were ordered to boycott local labour and import from England and Scotland instead to ensure complete disassociation with the native population, although early on this wasn’t obeyed strictly. At the time, numerous English families were being forced off their land by itinerant lords bent on intensifying wool production for European markets by enclosing common lands for their own use. These families would be reduced to begging in the streets of cities were it not for the Ulster Plantation. By ensuring these poor settlers still identified with their home nation rather than the poor of the nation they were settling by focusing on religious difference and preventing communication, their loyalty would always stay with the home nation. The condition of being Irish-rein, however, was tough to keep up in the early years, so when the English Civil War broke out in 1641, there was a population of Catholic landowners fearing for their safety that decided to rebel. It was a minor revolt looking for minor demands, but it provoked the English settlers into pogroms, which in turn provoked the poorer Irish into joining in. In the Ulster Massacres, around 12,000 of a settler population of 80,000 were killed. A new plan was drawn up. Cromwell’s New Model Army would go into Ireland and slaughter a quarter of the population, with tens of thousands being sent to America as slaves. The experiment was a success. Ethnic cleansing had created a successful settler colonialist project. Irish colonization became a safety valve for those affected by the ravages of Capitalism on Britain, particularly Scottish dispossessed in the Lowland and Highland Clearances. Settlers of America used the same practices. The Puritans’ religious fanaticism meant they were fine in risking life and livelihood by bringing their whole family across the ocean. They already believed themselves superior to the pagan Native Americans and black slaves, so there was no need for propagandizing. Their only threat was from indentured servants from Europe, who often cavorted with the African slaves they worked with. The solution was to extend the propaganda offensive into law. A ban on miscegenation could be enforced because of the presence of white women for marriage, which even the Irish fell under after slave-owners began breeding Irish women and black men to get higher prices on lighter-skinned slave children. Whiteness became a claim to some measure of honourability that one couldn’t have otherwise without noble blood, and to newly seized land once one’s indentured servitude ran out. By individualizing class mobility, the ruling classes gained the support of those affected by it. By the mid 18th century, the religious aspect of race was gone as scientific rationalism became the mode of thought for European intellectuals. By that time, the era of Romantic Nationalism had also begun, allowing these thinkers to quibble about which nations were exemplars of whiteness and which weren’t.
By the nineteenth century, European commentators were predicting that the white people would eliminate the rest of the world’s races and lay claim to the entire Earth through this model. In particular, the thought of Henri de Boulainvilliers, which theorized the Franks as a conqueror race and the Gauls as a sedentary one, was internationalized. Inter-imperial competition also pushed the idea that each nation was a distinct race entitled to its own part of Africa or Asia, a space where they could create their own tolerant society free of the intolerance caused by other races and religions existing near them. To bolster their claims of superiority and the most pressing need for land, Romantic authors built national histories wholly out of cloth. The question of who was the "Third Rome”, after the Byzantines and the Romans, became important because that nation could assert ownership of the entire Roman imperial history and thus justify greater land seizure. The fact that Russia, Austria, Germany and Italy bore little to no resemblance to the ancient empire mattered little. When the Brothers Grimm published their fairy tales, critics believed they needed Germanizing, so that they could serve as a better foundation for the German ethnicity. In America, a cult was created around George Washington, emphasizing his superiority as a human so that the superiority of the nation he created could also be emphasized. Jus Sanguinis, the law of blood, became the law of citizenship in Europe. The question of doing what’s best for a race went beyond acting within the nation-state. There were national questions, like the German question, on how best to unite each state into one whole. Giuseppe Garibaldi led a military expedition to unite Italian states by force into one whole. This was where the glorified national histories came in: how would one decide which lands each ethnicity was entitled to? Italy laid claim to Dalmatia, Monaco, Corsica, Corfu, even Libya and Tunisia in the later Fascist period. It bolstered its claims by commissioning art based on these histories. A sword-and-sandal film based on the invasion of Carthage by Rome was used by the Fascist regime as propaganda for its own wars in Africa. The consent of classes could be obtained not by disbursing material benefits like wage increases, but instead through the lie of nationalism. Rewards for sufficient loyalty could be increased living standards in the colonies, gained from primitive accumulation of the native’s surplus including by genocide. Millions of Europeans flooded into Africa and Asia, displacing tens of millions of people. Just looking at some of the body counts is proof that this was the most brutal era of humanity’s history. 100 million dead in India, 100 million dead in the Americas, 8 million dead in the Belgian Congo, 1 million dead in the first decade of French Algeria alone, etc. In most cases, Western historians have not bothered to calculate these numbers, but it’s fairly reasonable to look at the rest and draw conclusions. Even non-European nations got in on the act. The Japanese bourgeoisie were fortuitously placed to act on developmentalist impulses. It built for itself a European-style history about the pure blood warrior Yamato displacing the native sedentary Ainu, and took colonies in Korea and Taiwan through military victory. Nations like Siam and Ethiopia attempted to construct themselves in the European manner to ward off imperial predators, with varying degrees of success.
This nationalism found its endpoint in Fascism. Under the economic crises of 1873 and 1929, Conservative reaction on the part of national bourgeoisies made protectionism and sometimes autarky combined with expansionary tendencies towards pillage the perscribed cure. The essential horror of these regimes to the Capitalist order that spawned them was that they turned the whole logic of European imperialism towards Europe (and worse, not the Balkan part). Drang nach Osten, or “yearning to the east”, was a line of thought developed in 1880s Germany. Historians had claimed that German history was a continuous period of settlement to the East, displacing the barbaric Slavs and replacing them with civilized Germans. The first expulsions took place in 1885, when 30,000 Poles, particularly Polish Jews, were driven from Prussia. In no way was this odd for European historical standards, yet it received a great outcry both inside and outside of Germany. 50 years later, it became part and parcel of Nazi policy, which had campaigned on the issue for two decades. Germans were “Volk ohne Raum”, people without space, and Eastern Europe was “Raum ohne Volk”, space without people. The Nazis would undertake settler colonialism inside Germany and to its east. Those expelled were to be forced to live in remote locations, but because none of these locations were under German control, they were simply executed. In total, Eastern Europe saw 18 million civilian deaths, including those killed in the Holocaust. For the Holocaust itself, 5.9 million Jews, 3 million Ukrainians, 2 million Poles, as many as 1.5 million Romani, 500,000 Serbians, and 20,000 Slovenes were exterminated as lesser races to be cleared for living space. This was not an aberration, but the logical endpoint of European civilization. The Holocaust is completely familiar to any student of world history outside Europe because it had already occurred over and over. For 20 years after, it was rarely talked about outside of academic circles, with a virtual blackout in Israel, because of how understood this was. The only major study in the postwar period was Raoul Hilberg’s 1961 magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews, in which he states “The Germans had no model for the deed”, setting a virtual standard for Holocaust literature for the next 30 years. In fact, as the Nazi’s own statements show, the model was settler colonialism, particularly that of the Americans and British as they were the most successful at it. While anti-Communist literature focuses razer-sharp on the “totalitarian” nature of the Nazi regime in order to redeem its own ideology, anti-Communists in fact have more in common with the Nazis than Communists do, being part of the same line of European modernist thought.
One European nationalism evolved in an odd way. The initial proponents of Zionism were those who hated Jews the most. Christian Millenarians constructed European Jews as the direct descendants of those in the Exodus, needing to be put back where they belonged to bring about the end times. The first enunciations of “A land without a people for a people without a land" were by Reverend Alexander Keith and Anthony Ashley-Cooper, both committed to converting Jews to Christianity and sending those that didn’t to Palestine. European racist nationalists were also on board, seeing Jews as rootless and uncivilized, their own version of the barbarian native Others that haunted the colonization projects. The first proclamation of a Jewish homeland was by Napoleon during his Egyptian campaign, hoping that the fabled Jews of Israel would rise up and support him. What he didn’t know was that there were only 3,000 Jews in all of Palestine at the time, almost none of whom lived in Jerusalem thanks to religious cleansing by Crusaders. The majority of the population were the descendents of the ancient Hebrews who had converted to Islam under Ottoman rule. The first Jewish theorists of Zionism accepted the Christians’ premises wholeheartedly. Theodore Herzl blamed anti-Semitism on Jews, saying “where it does not exist, [anti-Semitism] is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations”. The Zionist mythology was lifted directly from the trappings of the Volkisch movements and their ilk. There was the purity of blood, as European Jews were considered Semites and not Caucasians, both fake racial categories. Even in the modern era this persists, with DNA tests to look for a Jewish gene finding a popular audience in Newsweek and the New York Times. As Shlomo Sand said, “It is a bitter irony to see the descendants of Holocaust survivors set out to find a biological Jewish identity: Hitler would certainly have been very pleased!” His book, The Invention of the Jewish Identity, explains how most Jews had more in common with the people of the states they lived in than with each other, and it was by the efforts of anti-Semites and Zionists that they were turned into a separate ethnicity that needed a homeland in the first place. There was the national Question, of how to create the statehood necessary to defend the purity of the race. For the Zionists, one way this was solved was by preventing emigration of Jews to America and England, and working with anti-Semitic governments to “solve” their Jewish Questions by exporting them to Palestine. This was the final piece of the puzzle, the settler colonialist project, complete with its own native Other, the Palestinians. As Holocaust survivor Primo Levi said, “Today, the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis.” Zionists knew the similarities between their project and other European ones:
The American journalist Vincent Sheean, for example, arrived in Palestine in 1929 as an avid Zionist sympathizer, and left a few months later as a harsh critic of the Zionist enterprise. He found that the Jewish settlers “had contempt [for the Arabs] as an ‘uncivilized race,’ to whom some of them referred as ‘Red Indians’ and others as ‘savages’,” and felt that “We don’t have to worry about the Arabs” who “will do anything for money.”
- Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle
Our peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine, in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are …. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.
- Ze’ev Jabitonsky
Indeed, much of Israel’s top brass and Likud Party leadership felt an affinity with South Africa’s white government, and unlike Peres and Rabin they did not feel a need to publicly denounce apartheid while secretly supporting Pretoria… It wasn’t long before Israel initiated defense cooperation with some of the world’s most notoriously brutal regimes, including Argentina’s military dictatorship, Pinochet’s Chile, and apartheid South Africa.
- Sasha Polakow-Suransky, The Unspoken Alliance
Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.
- South African prime minister Hendrik Verwoerd
Many countries conduct business with South Africa, and many countries support the survival of apartheid in various ways, but only Israel’s support is so direct and unreserved. Only in Israel are the red carpets rolled out for the visits of South African leaders” – as it was in April 1976 for Prime Minister John Vorster, who had been imprisoned by the British for pro-Nazi activities which he never repudiated. Only Israel, wrote Beit-Hallahmi, offered South Africa assistance “with everything from public relations to military and counterinsurgency measures.”
- Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, The Israeli Connection
The U.S. State and Commerce Departments are investigating “all possible routes” by which Rhodesia recently obtained American-made Bell helicopters of the type sold to Israel, but thus far no evidence exists that Israel has contravened its pledges, the State Department said today.
- Rhodesia and Israel, Jewish Telegraph Agency, December 22, 1978
Not least a negligible factor at the root of tense Algerian-Israeli relations had been Israel’s consistent pro-French vote at the UN opposing Maghribi national sovereignty. In essence, Israel echoed the policy of the Quai d’Orsay (French Foreign Ministry) that anything connected to Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria was a purely internal French matter.
- Michael M. Laskier, Israel and Algeria amid French Colonialism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1954-1978
Pinochet, of course, maintained excellent relations with the State of Israel, where Chile acquired weapons. This relationship made Israel vulnerable to criticism from both inside and outside the country. Despite the generally good Jewish relations, Pinochet had no problem praising the army of the German Third Reich, which he considered to be very brave, unlike the current German Army, which he called “an army of useless homosexuals.”
- Luis Fleischman, Pinochet: Good for Jews, Tragedy for Human Rights
A February 1983 CBS Evening News with Dan Rather program reported, Israel “didn’t send down congressmen, human rights activists or priests” to strengthen Israel’s special relationship with Guatemala. Israel “taught the Guatemalans how to build an airbase. They set up their intelligence network, tried and tested on the [Israeli-occupied Palestinian] West Bank and Gaza, designed simply to beat the Guerilla.” Time magazine (03/28/83) chimed in that Guatemalan army “outposts in the jungle have become near replicas of Israeli army field camps.” At one of these Israeli outposts replicated in Huehuetenango (among the areas hardest hit by the genocide, with the second highest number of massacres registered by a UN truth commission), Time continues: “Colonel Gustavo Menendez Herrera pointed out that his troops are using Israeli communications equipment, mortars, submachine guns, battle gear and helmets.” Naturally, as Army Chief of Staff Benedicto Lucas García had stated previously: “The Israeli soldier is a model and an example to us.”
- Gabriel Schivone, Israel’s Proxy War in Guatemala
Many Zionists sympathized with the Fascist regimes in Europe and were Fascists themselves. Revisionist Zionism, the strain founded by Ze’ev Jabitonsky, is today the guiding ideology of the Likud Party, having absorbed Jabitonsky’s Betar group through a series of mergers. Its adherents were often admirers of Mussolini, much like the Phalangists of Lebanon or the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, both ethnicities that would have been oppressed under Fascist ideology. Abba Ahmeir, founder of the Brit Habirionim faction of the Zionist Revisionist Movement, was openly sympathetic towards Hitler. His lawyer stated “Were it not for Hitler’s anti-Semitism, we would not oppose his ideology. Hitler saved Germany.” The newspaper of the ZRM supported this viewpoint up until the first concentration camps in Germany were opened, at which point they moved to opposition to the Nazis on the basis of immediate threat rather than ideological disagreement. But Labour Zionism couldn’t even manage this. In 1933, the Zionist Federation of Germany concluded the Haavara Agreement, where Germany would assist Jews in leaving to Palestine if they wished. Lenni Brenner has documented the further co-operation between Zionists and Nazi Germany. Nazi officials visited Palestine as guests of the Zionists, and invested heavily in Jewish settlements, comprising some 60% of all investments between 1933 and 1939, in violation of the Jewish boycott of Germany. Zionists supported the Nuremberg Laws, believing them to be a good way to force Jews to come to Palestine. The only Jewish-owned newspaper allowed to print after Kristallnacht was the Zionist Rundschau. In 1939, World War 2 severed these relations, but the Revisionist Stern Gang attempted to keep them going, justifying this by claiming Britain was a greater enemy of Jews than Nazi Germany for not immediately forming an Israeli state. Such relations might seem shocking until one realizes that anti-Semites and Zionists were operating from the same basic premise of European racism. It’s similar to a Stormfronter who claims they’re not racist because they want black people to have a homeland too.
Today, these parties compete for the Israeli electorate on the right and left wings of the political spectrum. They are joined by Religious Zionists that emerged in 1967, taking pages from the works of Christian Dominionists and applying them directly to Israeli politics. Their statements are often beyond the pale:
The six million Holocaust victims were reincarnations of the souls of sinners, people who transgressed and did all sorts of things that should not be done. They had been reincarnated in order to atone.
A woman’s knowledge is only in sewing … Women should find other jobs and make hamin but not deal with matters of Torah.
Women cannot go to war… If a woman runs over a cat with a car, she begins crying.” On the other hand, “a man is a man - give him a task and he will do it.
There was a tsunami and there are terrible natural disasters, because there isn’t enough Torah study… Black people [Kushim, a racist term] reside there [New Orleans]. Blacks will study the Torah? [God said], Let’s bring a tsunami and drown them… Hundreds of thousands remained homeless. Tens of thousands have been killed. All of these because they have no God… Bush was behind the [expulsion of] Gush Katif, he encouraged Sharon to expel Gush Katif… We had 15,000 people expelled here [in Israel], and there [in America] 150,000 [were expelled]. It was God’s retribution… God does not short-change anyone.
It is forbidden to be merciful to [Palestinians]. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.
- Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, founder of the Shas Party
I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state.
I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that.
- Naftali Bennet, head of the Jewish Home Party
The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years.
Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man.
- Eli Yishai, head of the Shas Party
Both of these parties have been in government coalitions in the last 5 years. Were these statements to be said about Native Americans, we would have no problem labeling the people who belong to these parties as Fascists or Nazis. They show a European supremacist character, one with clear links to the ideology that has just been described. I don’t mean to sit here and defend referring to Jewish people as Nazis or Fascists simply because I wish to. Rather, it is because the same ideology, the European imperialist brand of Capitalism, that motivates both groups. Today, this is largely kept alive in the Anglosphere and in Israel, with portions still used in various countries like Chile, the Western Sahara and Fiji. It is a major achilles heal in Israel, yet the state simply cannot move past its contradictions because it is the primary method it secures the consent of its populace through. There’s a damn good reason most other states have moved past it, and even America mostly applies it to its domestic politics. It simply can’t work in the era of modern interconnected Capitalism. The good news is that exploitation of it may be the key to bringing down Israel, which would not only liberate the Palestinian people but also work towards a more broad-based geopolitical goal: the end of America’s current form of Capitalist global expansion.
American aid to Israel before 1967 amounted to a paltry few million dollars. Israel’s main military backers before this were France and West Germany, a continuation of the latter’s support during the Nazi era. By 1970, US military aid was in the billions of dollars in real terms per year. Israel had crushed the army of Nasserist Egypt in 1967, which was advocating a different type of Nationalism that involved a degree of socialism, including the nationalization of resources for spending on social programs. It had been threatening Saudi Arabia with military invasion and with a proxy war in Yemen, buying military equipment from the Soviet Union (of course, for the hefty prices they were willing to sell top quality hardware at, rather than the close relationship portrayed by American officials). With the war, America realized Israel could be a “Sparta”, protecting America’s close relationship with the foremost oil producer in the world and the state that provides most of the energy used in Asia, Europe and Africa in exchange for military hardware and economic ties. Israel’s first task was to break up George Habash’s Arab Nationalist Movement, then to crush the Palestinian Liberation Organization which was threatening the Hashemite King of Jordan in the name of Socialism. Israeli military force brought Sadat into the American fold, turned the Syrian Ba’athists into advocates of Neoliberal globalization, kept the Iranians in check and allowed America to supply its genocidal allies when the American electorate was opposed to such actions, as in Central America in the 1980s. The end of this capability could be staggering for American Empire. It’s through the stick of its military clients and the carrot of the benefits of globalization for national elites that Neoliberalism has triumphed over and over again abroad. Removing Israel would remove the former in the Middle East. More importantly, Capitalism itself requires cheap energy be produced by exploiting Middle Eastern workforces, especially that of Saudi Arabia. With control of energy out of the hands of America’s long term planning for the survival of Capitalism and in any other hands, even those of a short term oriented national bourgeoisie, Capitalism functions much less effectively. That’s why Israel represents a major issue for Leftist commentators today, and why its existence must be opposed at all costs.
tl;dr read some Joseph Massad
Feel free to browse our Northern Gateway tag. We don’t hide our biases and our anti-pipeline stance is not disguised by any means. You may notice one article excerpt about the pipeline’s approval begins: “fuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUCK.” Does that answer your inquiry?
Ultimately, though, this blog isn’t about us. Biases matter, obviously; we mostly copypaste existing articles but we also clearly have a selection process. The thing is, though, that your understanding requires more work on your part than it does on ours. We’re not here to defend our personal biases; we don’t institute policy. We volunteer our time to reading the news and posting it to a tumblr. We are both biased and vocal, but justifying our biases goes beyond the scope.
I’m glad biases are important to you, but are you sure we’re the people you want to ask after?
The Conservatives are strongly pro-Israel. Please let me issue a warning for that video: the heavy implication — it’s overt in every sense except that they never refer to Palestinians by name — is that Palestinians, unilaterally, are terrorists. The Conservative rhetoric about Israel is uncompromising and overtly draws on WWII and the Holocaust as a source of its support for its views, which is really difficult to argue with.
The Conservatives are disinterested in compromise or agreement; their support of Israel is absolute to the point where that video discounts “going along to get along” as “quite simply weak and wrong”, which I personally read as a rejection of mediation attempts and borders a call to arms in defense of Israel. The Conservative voter base has been historically pro-Israel so it makes political sense to make this ad, but it’s also fucking disgusting to discount all Palestinians as “terrorists,” and it’s clear that these materials are more about securing voters and putting forth a certain image of Canadian support than it is about actually proportionately held views. I would think that if there are any Conservatives that are more ambiguous on their support of Israel, they are keeping their mouths shut.
The Liberals just reiterated recently they were pro-Israel, but Justin Trudeau is being viewed as not standing with Harper, or at least as comparatively silent on the issue, and I think it’s safe to say that not all Liberals do or would support Israel outright. I think it’s also safe to say that most Liberals probably do support Israel, though. Obviously they would be less inclined to send troops to support one side or the other; were they in power, I think the most we would expect was a statement in support of Israel and some expressions of regret about the conflict.Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberals call for negotiation, and would be far more inclined to send representatives in an endeavor to establish a ceasefire.
The NDP are currently experiencing some uncertainty and in-fighting on this topic. Thomas Mulcair himself has spoken strongly in support of Israel; in 2008 he said, “je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël” (“I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances”), but that view has been amended in some ways since he took leadership of the NDP. He personally has supported some of Harper’s views on the conflict, before he was leader of the party, due to this support of the state of Israel.
At the very least, the NDP explicitly calls for ceasefire negotiations and will at least acknowledge Israeli aggressions, even if he does list all Palestinian aggressions before getting to those committed to them. Some NDP MPs have obviously and openly disagreed with Mulcair’s views; NDP MP for Vancouver’s Hastings-Sunrise riding Libby Davies was condemned some years ago for her counter-Israel comments, and Svend Robinson, before he left politics, was overtly pro-Palestine (I’ve lived in Vancouver too long; there are likely others in other areas of the country).
I’m still unclear as to how much Mulcair’s views are the party’s official views, or whether they even constitute the views of the majority of NDP MPs. The NDP probably wants to continue being the catch-all party and not state an overt view in case it alienates any aspect of its support base, but Mulcair’s voice is loud and it’s hard to hear the chorus of all-inclusion over the sound of his views.
ETA: here is an official publication describing the NDP’s policies in this matter, which includes overt support for Palestinian statehood, among other things. It is however from 2011, before Mulcair took leadership of the party.
And, as we saw earlier today, Elizabeth May and the Green Party are condemning illegal Israeli expansion (the article has placed “illegal” in quotation marks to cover its ass but I think it’s safe to assume it actually is illegal). A criticism of one does not imply an endorsement of another, and their ambiguity is intentional: officially, the party calls for a bi-lateral ceasefire, advocates a Palestinian right to statehood, and likewise acknowledges an “intractable right” for the state of Israel to exist. This view isn’t uncertain; it’s clear in the sense that it supports everyone’s right to have the land they’re mutually advocating for. The Green Party seems to be advocating for an international conference of support intended to negotiate a peace agreement where both sides’ demands are addressed.
Hope this helps. -L
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has no plans to pull her endorsement of a motion that would see the party “fully condemn all illegal Israeli settlement expansions” as “undeniable obstacles to the Israel-Palestine peace-process,” despite escalating tensions in the region.
The proposed resolution is on the list of policy proposals slated to come up for debate during the party’s weekend convention in Fredericton.
"I support the existing resolution condemning illegal settlements," May told CBC News Friday.
In fact, she says she wouldn’t be surprised to see emergency resolutions related to both Gaza and the situation in Ukraine raised during Saturday’s opening session.
The motion, which was drafted by Young Greens co-chair Ghaith El-Mohtar, a former intern in May’s Ottawa office, is one of 54 draft policy resolutions on the agenda for convention attendees this weekend.
May is one of 14 listed co-sponsors.
According to an official policy statement on the Department of Foreign Affairs website, Canada believes the Israeli settlements “constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace,” but the government has in recent years avoided commenting on the settlements.
In a backgrounder posted on the Green Party website, El-Mohtar acknowledges the motion “will likely have political repercussions” for the party.
"It will almost certainly frustrate the party’s supporters who happen to support Israel’s settlement expansions," he explained.
"It may also provoke a reaction from Canada’s Israel lobby, which currently enjoys almost unconditional support for Israel’s actions as the political norm in Canada."
On the other hand, he pointed out that it could “reinforce [the party’s] image as a supporter of justice in the Middle East,” which, he predicted, “would likely win over former NDP supporters who oppose [NDP Leader] Thomas Mulcair’s unquestioning support of Israel.”
The NDP hasn’t been shy of reminding the government of Canada’s official position on settlements, but it is fair to say the party has become less critical of the Israeli government under Mulcair’s leadership.
Last month, a would-be NDP candidate claimed his position on Israeli-Palestinian issues were behind the party executive’s move to block him from running for the nomination in the new B.C. riding of Nanaimo-Ladysmith. The NDP refused to confirm or deny his claim.
The government and the Conservative Party have been vocal about their staunch and unwavering support for Israel, while the Liberals this week expressed support for Israel in the current conflict with Hamas. […]
Even with May’s backing, the resolution isn’t guaranteed a slot during the main plenary sessions, which are set to take place on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning.
But the results of the pre-convention online vote — which, while not formally counted, are presented to attendees — indicate the position could garner widespread support within the rank-and-file membership if it does.
According to the numbers posted to the website, 83.6 per cent voted in favour of the resolution as drafted, 10.7 per cent were prepared to endorse it if it was “clarified” during the workshop session, and just 5.7 per cent were opposed.
The website doesn’t say how many members took part in the online survey. […]
A draft of the resolution is also available in the above link.
fucking good. ndp’s timorousness on this is bullshit
Okay! This certainly happened:
Last month, Strathcona resident and food policy council member Trish Kelly won by far the most votes in Vision Vancouver’s nomination race for four positions on its park-board slate.
She was supported by 1,662 Vision members, which was way ahead of second-place finisher Naveen Girn’s 1,125 votes.
But today, Kelly announced in a news release that she won’t be a candidate in the November election.
“After 25 years of serving my community, I put my name forward as a Park Board nominee to move my life as a community activist fighting for social justice issues, to claiming a seat at the decision-making table,” Kelly stated. “Unfortunately, my work in theatre and as a sex-positive activist is being sensationalized—and will clearly continue to be—distracting from my efforts in the community and in the election campaign.”
Kelly, a popular member of Vancouver’s LGBT community, made a humorous video about masturbation, which was posted on YouTube by political activist Raymond Tomlin. (The video has since been taken down.)
“I have never hidden from this work,” Kelly said in the news release. “I hold no shame nor regret for the work I have produced. I have dedicated, and will continue to dedicate, much of my life to contributing to my community, to having difficult conversations, and to making myself vulnerable in order to make space for others.”
Kelly, who’s of Métis and Ukrainian heritage, was unavailable for an interview to say what role this video may have played in her choosing not to be on the ballot.
But Vancouver’s super progressive, right?