What is important in moving forward, is that various "interest groups" aren't allowed to bully their position, at the expense of other factions within the party. Jewish Liberals have become increasingly vocal in demanding that the party adopt their perspective. However, the Liberal Party can't be an extension of the Jewish lobby because it effectively alienates other constituencies that are equally important. An inclusive party must draw on various opinions, especially in a circumstance where both sides can claim validity. You can't expect a party to completely adopt a perspective that doesn't have universal appeal. Official party policy must reflect some emotional detachment from an issue that allows for a rational approach.
I would argue that the recent policy purity that has been demanded undermines the premise of free speech and a robust discussion of ideas. In my mind, the Lebanese question is incredibly complicated and doesn't lend itself to simple black and white propositions. It is an open question on how to proceed diplomatically, and it may involve some decisions that aren't endorsed by all subsets of the Liberal Party. Offering to negotiate with Hezbollah doesn't necessarily translate into a lack of support for Israel, but it may simply reflect a simple reading of a permanent reality. Purging people and demanding resignations from those who express this sentiment is a dangerous precedent that shows no recognition of the complexities moving forward, nor does it embrace the idea of a big tent. Everyone who like the party to completely reflect their opinions, however a party that adopts narrow points of view is destined for marginalization. The Liberal Party is "messy" and it really shouldn't be any other way. People shouldn't feel threatened if they express a view that isn't endorsed by everyone.
8 comments:
Your posts on this topic have been models of even-handedness.
Official party policy must reflect some emotional detachment from an issue that allows for a rational approach.
Insisting on a "balanced" and "middle" approach on every issue is just another emotional attachment. There is nothing rational or right about always just splitting the difference.
Could it be that this time those who suggest that we not grant legitimacy to a terrorist non-state actor actually have the rational position? And could it be that one could hold this position without being Jewish? Heaven forbid.
Of course, it's the ever powerful Jewish lobby causing Hezbollah's classification. Nothing to do with the acts of terror they actually commit.
A Jew under every rock, eh Peace?
peter
A rational approach doesn't translate into a neutral position, it just recognizes the political reality. If you want to deal with Lebanon, you must deal with Hezbollah- period. Hezbollah is a permanent fixture, even moreso in the aftermath of this misguided offensive. Simply saying we won't deal with Hezbollah goes nowhere fast, doesn't address the problem in any substantive way and assures future conflict. Hardened positions are what fosters this mess, Canada should look at every avenue available to try and move the process forward. What is wrong with taking a formal position, wherein we set terms for Hezbollah's omission from the terrorist list. Where is the harm in trying?
Interesting to note, today's news headlines are full of stories that speculate on the NATO, Taliban "negotiations". All covert of course, it suggests hypocrisy on our formal position. How could you possibly fathom negotiating with suicide bombers? The reality demands an attempt, that takes precedence over idealistic stances.
Peace, the point is that Canada can stand with Israel as a democracy without it being the result of an international Jewish conspiracy and lobby.
As for different civilian causalty rates, I think we can both agree that the Israel on Lebanon rates would be a lot lower if Hezbollah would do us all the courtesy of not exclusively using civilian sites for their military outposts.
As for Hezbollah, we do not need to debate their status any more than we need to debate the clasification of murder as a crime. Anyway, would you really want them to not be a terrorist organization, and instead grant them legitimacy? Think about the implications of this for Lebanon. Suddenly Lebanon becomes a failed state because it has a rouge military within its borders which it does not control. At that point, Israel is free to do as she wishes in retaliation on any number of state infrastructures. Definitions matter.
Steve, I am not suggesting that negotiation with hezbollah not occur. I just don't think we should treat them as equals with Israel when assigning blame. Peace obviously feels the same way, s/he simply places the weights on the other side of the ledger.
peter
"I just don't think we should treat them as equals with Israel when assigning blame."
I think that depends on your starting point.
I have no idea what that means.
What part did Israel play in creating the environment that allowed Hezbollah to fester? Blame is so subjective in this region, each side finds ample evidence to support their arguments.
Post a Comment