In the last couple of months, Barack Obama has gone before the American public to explain himself or perhaps to apologize for remarks made. He wasn’t terribly successful.
Similarly,
Michael Ignatieff, Member of Parliament for Etobicoke Lakeshore, Deputy Leader Liberal Party of Canada, delivered an address at Holy Blossom Synagogue, Toronto last night with the intention of doing likewise. He also wasn't successful.
When Ignatieff was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party hoping to be Canada's next Prime Minister, he lost the nomination in part because he blamed Israel for war crimes just after the Qana event. He came to repair the damage. His speech was called
“Canada and Israel: A Personal Perspective on the Ties That Bind”
How many of you feel the world is quick to condemn Israel without taking the time to understand the reasons for its actions? How many of you feel that there are people who ascribe sinister motives to Israel’s actions when none exist? How many of you feel that nothing Israel says is listened to, because so many people have stopped listening at all? I know that many of you feel that way about Israel. It also happens to be the way I feel I am perceived in some parts of the Jewish community.
Why do Harvard intellectuals, like Obama and Ignatieff, turn to ridiculous analogies to make a point or gain sympathy.
The personal ties that bind me to Israel run deep. My father was a Canadian diplomat and he served as one of Canada’s representatives on the UN Palestine committee that voted for a partition that the Jewish community accepted and the Arab world rejected in 1947. I was born that year and as my father was rushing out of the committee to get to the hospital, he was stopped in the hallway of the UN by a rabbi who wanted to know how the negotiations were going. My father said he couldn’t say, he couldn’t stop, his son had just been born, whereupon the rabbi gave him—and me—the first religious blessing I ever received.
Later as our Ambassador at the UN, my father was proud of the work he did with Abba Eban, Israel’s Foreign Minister in the negotiations around Resolution 242, which defines some of the elements of a peace to this day. As for me, I’ve been to Israel half a dozen times and lived there on two separate occasions, once in 1988, when I was covering Intifada 1 for the BBC and again in 1999 when I was a guest of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba. Thanks to these good times, I count Israelis among my dearest and truest friends. I am, finally, the biographer of Isaiah Berlin, a liberal Zionist, whose impact on me as a man and a thinker is deeper than anyone except my own
father.
So you can begin to imagine how I felt when a single remark, offered on a television program in the heat of my campaign for the Liberal leadership in 2006, led many of my Jewish friends, some in sorrow, some in anger, to brand me an enemy of Israel.
I have no doubt that Ignatieff likes Jews and has many Jewish friends. I will go so far as to suggest that he also likes Israel. But he still may be an enemy of Israel.
You’ll remember the circumstances. Hezbollah was raining rockets down on northern Israeli towns and had taken Israeli soldiers hostage. Like any state Israel has the right to defend itself, and it did so, with a sustained incursion into south Lebanon. During that incursion, civilians were killed in a place called Qana.
I was asked what I thought about Qana.
Had I said that Israel had a right to defend itself, but had to avoid civilian casualties and disproportionate use of force, some of you might not have been happy but you would have understood what I meant.
Had I said, that Israel’s enemies—Hamas and Hezbollah—don’t play by the same rules, indeed don’t play by any rules at all, you would have known that I understand why it’s hard for Israel to play by the rules, though it must.
Had I said the other side systematically altered evidence about Qana to put Israel in a bad light, You might not have agreed, but you would have understood.
What I actually said was that a war crime had been committed at Qana.
All hell broke loose. I was accused of everything, including intellectual antisemitism. Many Jewish friends and supporters, who knew how deep my affection for Israel actually runs, stood with me and stand with me still but others broke with me and have not returned.
No doubt about it, it was the most painful error of my political life. I meant only that in legitimately defending itself against a terrorist enemy, Israel may have failed to comply with the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war.
Ignatieff might have said those things, but he didn't. He said "that a war crime had been committed at Qana.". I, as a friend of Israel, would never have said that, because my first impulse is to defend Israel, not to hector it. I would also not have said it because I would not jump to any conclusions before a proper hearing.
His alternate choice was to say "(Israel) had to avoid civilian casualties and disproportionate use of force". Yes we would have disagreed and understood. What we would have understood was that he is purposely misstating the law. Israel's duty is not to intentionally kill civilians not to "avoid civilian casualties". Had he also added that force is not disproportionate if it is necessary to achieve a military objective he would have shown he understood.
Furthermore, Ignatieff is not qualified to even tell you from a lawyer's perspective what the Geneva Conventions say and what they mean and when they apply but he is quick to condemn.
The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense by Avraham Bell and
Bomb Gaza, Win the War describes the law. I also wrote to our Consul General advising
“disproportionate force” is not illegal. The people who accuse Israel of war crimes are always on the left and think of the law as they want it to be, not as it is.
But for every friend of Israel, the phrase I used carried the implication of a false and fatal equivalence—which I never intended— between Israeli actions and the despicable actions of their persecutors in times past and present.
He is wrong in this. Accusing Israel of a war crime in no way connotes equivalency. Not for a moment would I think he is saying that Hezbollah and Israel are both guilty of war crimes. The purpose of such equivalency would be to condone Hezbollah. But that is not what he intended.
Memory of my remark still lingers, however, and it continues to shadow my relation to a community for whom I have always had deep affection and respect. And it’s not just about me. I’m in a political party and colleagues dear to me paid a price for my mistake. When you make a mistake in public life, it is tempting to let sleeping dogs lie. I just couldn’t. I’ve made mistakes before. This one was different. [..]
It’s ridiculous to suggest that either I or the Liberal Party is equivocal on the subject of Israel. Since the Liberal government recognized Israel in 1948, my party has never failed to strengthen the ties that bind one democratic state, built on the rule of law, to another. We have never failed to respect the passionate chord of loyalty that connects Canadian Jews to the state of Israel. We have never equated fairness between the legitimate claims of Israelis and Palestinians with remaining neutral between terrorists and democracy.
Canada can never remain neutral between Israel and those enemies— Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran—who deny Israel’s right to exist, deny the Holocaust and seek her destruction. [..]
Despite Iran’s provocations—in fact because of it—the struggle for peace in the Middle East must go on. We must prove the rejectionists, the enemies of Israel, wrong. We must prove that peace is still possible.
My party has always called for a two state solution in which Palestinians and Israelis agree on borders, share the land and live in peace, recognizing each other’s rights. If the Annapolis round of negotiations proves successful, Canada should offer its help to anchor the peace and
make it permanent.
Assistance yes. Pressure never. Israelis and Palestinians cannot be forced to make peace on terms that are not in their interest. Outside powers can help, but they cannot dictate. The Arab nations equally must end 60 years of rejection and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
That's interesting because in Jan 2003 Reihan Salam, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations wrote
Imperial Musings in which he reviewed an
article by Ignatieff.
An imperial America must use its leverage to force a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. After all, that's exactly what empires do: throw their weight around and rein in recalcitrant vassal states. Buried in the middle of the article is the following:
Properly understood, then, the operation in Iraq entails a commitment, so far unstated, to enforce a peace on the Palestinians and Israelis. Such a peace must, at a minimum, give the Palestinians a viable, contiguous state capable of providing land and employment for three million people. It must include a commitment to rebuild their shattered government infrastructure, possibly through a United Nations transitional administration, with U.N.-mandated peacekeepers to provide security for Israelis and Palestinians. This is an awesomely tall order, but if America cannot find the will to enforce this minimum of justice, neither it nor Israel will have any safety from terror. This remains true even if you accept that there are terrorists in the Arab world who will never be content unless Israel is driven into the sea. A successful American political strategy against terror depends on providing enough peace for both Israelis and Palestinians that extremists on either side begin to lose the support that keeps violence alive.
It's déjà vu all over again. Ignatieff's blueprint closely resembles a proposal put forth by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in 2002, and it happens to be what pro-Arafat Left-wingers have been advocating since long before Oslo. That Arafat's murderous intentions have long since become entirely clear is ignored, as is the fact that "extremists on either side" are not equivalent, morally or otherwise. Thankfully, Ignatieff does concede that Israel's refusal to negotiate under fire is justified, but this is — one assumes — only yet another reason to dictate terms.
Call it Left-wing unilateralism.
Our party will never support one-sided condemnations of Israel in the UN.
But they did when they were in power. They voted against Israel on most UN resolutions. How can he say this with a straight face.
The UN resolution on Zionism as racism was a disgrace. Those who compare Israel to apartheid South Africa don’t know what they are talking about. Canada should take no part in human rights conferences that single out Israel for condemnation and ignore the human rights abuses of others.
The first sentence is telling. "One-sided condemnations" means both sides must be condemned in the resolution. Once again we are back to equivalence. No thank you. Vote against condemnations of Israel period because Israel cannot get justice at the UN.
The last sentence presupposes Israel can find justice before any international tribunal if Israel is not singled out. It is my belief, even if Israel is not singled out, it will be unfairly condemned because of different standards, inherent prejudices and political agendas.
Equally, Israel should be held to the same standards of conduct, in relation to human rights and the laws of war, as any other state, neither more nor less. As old friends, Canada has a right to talk straight with our Israeli friends just as Israel has the right to talk straight with us. We aren’t perfect, Israel isn’t perfect. Nobody is, after all, except the Lord above.
This should go without saying. But why must he "talk straight with Israel." What has Israel done wrong? Is he referring to the war crimes thing again? Since most other states are not held to any standards neither should Israel be so held.
A vigorous competition has opened up for the votes of the Jewish community. This is as it should be. The Jewish community speaks with many voices: orthodox and liberal, progressive and conservative, secular and religious. The community is a community—it stands like a rock when its members are attacked--but it is also equally proud of its differences. Groups
repeatedly try to speak for the community, but as citizens you are too wise to let anyone monopolize your voice and your support.
So there is something strange about the news reports that the Jewish community is going to vote en masse for the Conservatives in the next election. There’s even something a little arrogant in that assumption. I don’t believe you’ll vote for anyone en masse at the next election. You will make up your mind, one family, one person at a time.
As you make these choices, you may want to ask whether the question of Israel is the only issue that will determine your vote. I know how much Canada matters to you. For as long as I’ve been a liberal—and that’s 40 years—Jewish friends have been at the forefront of the battle for a progressive and compassionate Canada. Members of your community are never missing in action when the fight is joined for decent housing, health care, justice for aboriginal Canadians or a clean environment. You can’t walk into a hospital or a university in this city without witnessing, in the benefactions of your community leaders, the compassion, generosity and
foresight of the Jewish people writ large.
These great virtues are not the monopoly of any faith, but the Jewish faith has embodied them as well as any one. These virtues are not the monopoly of any party either but ours has defended progressive social compassion as well as anyone.
I can’t believe, given your reputation for justice and fairness that you’ll allow your political choices to be influenced by the slurs that are circulated about my party or about me. Liberals stand with you, always have, always will.
"Slurs"? Obama's supporters use this word to discredit true facts. And now, shamefully so does Ignatieff.
Jewish community leaders sometimes confess to me that they feel marginalized in the hectic competition for political attention that has opened up among ethnic and religious groups in Canada. They want to know whether the community still has the ear of the Liberal Party or whether we have begun to listen to other groups hostile to Israel.
Thanks to the work of the Congress, the Canada Israel Committee, Bnai Brith, CJPAC and others, you can rest assured: your voice is heard. The Liberal party is listening. But we do more than listen. We stand with you whenever multicultural tolerance fractures into hatred. When an orthodox religious school was fire-bombed in Montreal in September 2006, I was there, as were other colleagues, to express our horror and our solidarity. I was there when a mosque’s windows were broken in Mississauga in 2007 by some misguided hoodlums. Last week, our party leader committed to a program of funding the security needs of all religious communities when Canadians return us to government. No community should be required to pay to defend itself against deluded hate-mongers. No community should live in fear. No
community should feel that it must defend itself alone.
The duty of all of us to stand up against hatred is clear. But there are other duties that are less clear. What duty of truth does a politician owe to the diverse communities who elect us? Politicians are often accused of pandering to different groups, saying whatever they want us to say in order to secure votes. I was accused of pandering on the Lebanon war, though if I was, I managed the unique feat of alienating both the Jewish and the Lebanese community with my remarks.
So I’ve had to figure out what principles to stand for, when faced with diametrically opposing claims from the people I try to serve. I’ve learned that it is no longer true, if it ever was, that all politics is local. Our politics has gone global. Jewish Canadians follow developments in the Middle East as closely as they follow the goings on in Ottawa, but so do their Lebanese,
Arab and Palestinian Canadian neighbours.
The Middle East drama is not the only problem that can set Canadian citizens against each other. At various times, Bosnia, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Kosovo, Kurdistan have divided our citizens and forced Canadian politicians to take sides in conflicts some of us do not understand in places some of us may have some trouble finding on a map.
So what to do? As citizens, as politicians, we cannot stay silent about these conflicts. It is a good thing that Canadian Jews care passionately about Israel and that Palestinian Canadians care passionately about justice for their cause. The problem for a Canadian politician is how to play an honest part in preventing these differences from causing conflict at home.
Far be it for him to question "the justice for their cause".
[..] A third rule is that I must speak for Canada. I am not here to speak for any political group within Israel or anywhere else. It is the national interest of Canada that must guide my actions as an elected representative. In relation to the Middle East, that means striving to prevent a wider and deadlier conflict in which Israel goes to the wall. It means finding a way to
stop more heavy weapons and missiles pouring into south Lebanon, weapons that could one day threaten Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It means finding a way to guarantee the full independence of the state of Lebanon. As for the Palestinians, it means working with them to create institutions that serve rather than exploit their people and create partners for a lasting peace. Canada must speak out against the introduction of deadly rockets into Gaza. These bring with them a steady deterioration of security conditions for Palestinians and Israelis alike. There cannot be peace if rockets are raining down on Sderot. There cannot be peace if Israel’s only option of self-defence is punitive raids in Gaza.
Nice sentiments, but where is the action from anybody to stop the rockets.
I want to return to the offending statement that was at the center of all this. Ignatieff was doing what the left does, i.e.accusing Israel in a knee-jerk fashion, using international law as a club, claiming war crimes to inhibit Israel and to deny it's self defense. In so doing he became one of them, one of our accusers. That's why I said above that he may be an enemy of Israel.
Ignatieff merely explained what he meant. But what he said and what he says he meant to say, bear no relationship to each other. He didn't apologize for saying it and he certainly didn't say it was wrong to suggest it. Nor did he say Israel didn't commit a war crime. Ignatieff said what he meant.
In the question period he kept returning the the importance of international law, because without that we have nothing, so to speak. He railed against disproportionate use of force without regard for what is disproportionate. He was against collateral damage without saying what it was in the context of war.
He's for peace. Yeah.
The audience wasn't taken in. Yeah.
One person asked him why he endorse
The Israel Lobby on the back cover. He was ready for that and answered his endorsement was of a previous book Measheimer and Walt had written. As if this excused the fact that he lent credit to them to advance this book.
Dr. Aurel Braun who moderated and asked probing questions, in a frontal assault, said that Measheimer and Walt could be compared to Pastor Wright. Ouch. Ignatieff demurred.
Then the fairness of
Human Rights Watch and
Amnesty International came up, and Ignatieff said they were great organizations and did good work. That was not to say that they were perfect, he said. Maybe they get some things wrong. He rejected notions that they might be biased against Israel. He was very familiar with HRW telling us of their yearly budget and his acquaintance with Ken Roth. His kind of people.
Anyone who blurts out Israel is guilty of war crimes or who defends HRW and AI or thinks that Israel shouldn't use disproportionate force is not my kind of people and is an enemy of Israel.
The question for Ignatieff is, does he like international law and the UN more that he likes Israel. The answer is obvious.
