You know, when representatives of over 30 countries agree on something… it’s kind of miraculous. All the agendas, and internal bickering, and differing philosophies, etc. Hell, just getting the government of a single democratic country to take a position on something is an achievement, since every firm position is bound to offend some power group “at home”. So something that several countries can publicly agree on, you might think, would be pretty obvious.
And yet, here comes Canada (under the minority Harper administration) to disagree:
CANADA VOTES AGAINST RESOLUTION
January 13, 2009Yesterday, Canada was the sole member of the UN Human Rights Council to vote against a resolution, which passed in a 33-1 vote, condemning Israel over its actions in Gaza.
The vote crystallized Canada’s emergence under Stephen Harper’s government as one of Israel’s firmest supporters.
…
This is not, perhaps, surprising, given Harper’s long time rhetorical stance on the middle east:
Israel continues to get unshakable support from Harper
On Israel’s 60th anniversary last April, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised Canada’s “unshakable” support for Israel.
At the time, this struck me as odd. It would be understandable for a prime minister to offer Canada’s “unshakable” support for the principles of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, etc. But for a country? A country is led by a government, and a government is always fallible. Why would Canada promise its unqualified support for any country?
…
I’d like to make this a straight up “Harper is an ass” post, but sadly, the official opposition isn’t looking any different:
Ignatieff says Israel must be allowed to defend itself from Hamas attacks
HALIFAX, N.S. – 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 on Thursday after speaking to a forum of business leaders on the economy.
…
He was also pro-invading Iraq, right? So his credentials on the middle east are impeccable. Sigh.
What about the party I usually vote for? Well, much as Layton personally still galls me, he seems a little more human, and nuanced, in his official position:
Urgently, New Democrats call on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to join UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in publicly pressing for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
New Democrats are extremely concerned about the loss of innocent civilian lives in both Gaza and Israel. The use of force in Gaza must cease; so too must rocket attacks on Israel. We join with world leaders in describing the shelling of a United Nations Headquarters as indefensible.
…
So that’s two “Israel can do no wrong” votes and one “let’s stop loss of innocent lives across the region”. I know where my sympathies lie.
I don’t have a lot of interest in getting any further into this debate than just pointing out party positions–I don’t think I am going to change anyone’s mind–let me just add a couple of links that you might want to follow:
Bill Moyers reflects on the recent onslaught (and later, responds to accusations that his reflections make him a morally reprehensible anti-Semite).
Israelis United on Gaza War as Censure Rises Abroad — a NYT piece that looks at how the “operations” are perceived inside Israel.
