tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1710228798415703303.post8682614409434090655..comments2024-03-28T20:15:47.564-04:00Comments on Toronto to Ra'anana: Prime Minister Harper's Trip to Israel - January 2014Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1710228798415703303.post-39741168708027703242014-01-21T19:14:49.030-05:002014-01-21T19:14:49.030-05:00Responding to 2nd Anon, I agree with some of what ...Responding to 2nd Anon, I agree with some of what you wrote, but I note your comment "when it happens on your soil or your personal friends or if you are directly invoved[sic]...". In spite of the good relationship and admiration shared between Isreal and Canada, it is not helpful for observer countries (friend, or otherwise) to respond to disputes and crisis as if one party is our personal friend, or as if we were personally involved. That just leads to one bloc of friends/allies against another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1710228798415703303.post-60800301562375871552014-01-20T19:19:39.807-05:002014-01-20T19:19:39.807-05:00In response to your Anonymous comment, I am uncomf...In response to your Anonymous comment, I am uncomforable with being a neutral broker ( honest is all relative). When it happens on your soil or your personal friends or if you are directly invoved then I would like to see if you would still stay neutral. If we are to be PEOPLE OF PEACE and have the cedibility you are looking for you must lead by example. Not taking a stand on right from wrong, trying to have each side like you because you sympathize with the plight they are in does not make for honest, longlasting, and true peace. More importantly, it is the consistancy with which we act and hold steadfast in our values that will bring the credibility you are seeking from both sides. Take a stand and be heard, so that everyone will know and recognize what you are willing to do or not do for peace.<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1710228798415703303.post-44107815340411376402014-01-17T17:26:12.288-05:002014-01-17T17:26:12.288-05:00I agree with your unrelated point that the 150-200...I agree with your unrelated point that the 150-200 "guests" of the Prime Minister should pay their own way. My understanding is that only those guests who are actually flying with the PM (30 or so) are having their trips paid for by the PMO. But I'm not sure about that. Even so, I still agree that any person attending who is not part of the government or working for the government should pay their own way.<br /><br />But on your broader point, I maintain my original assertion. Canada should promote and support democratic, free countries. It's not simply because we are "more like them," it is because we have common goals of freedom, rule of law, equality of opportunity and other similar values. That is, after all, why we sided with Britain and France in WWII, isn't it?<br />If there are two sides committed to similar goals, then Canada's posture should be much more neutral. So if Canada is trying to broker a deal between a government (Palestinian or otherwise) that is truly committed to a peaceful resolution, to freedom, to stability - sure, Canada should be an "honest broker." <br /><br />But if the country is Iran, or the entity that we are dealing with is Hezbollah or Hamas - should we be in the middle just for the sake of saying we are an "honest broker" even if that position is morally questionable? Like Switzerland in World War II?<br /><br />I did not say that Canada should only support Israel - in this dispute - or should only foster credibility with the Israelis. Canada should be willing - and it has been - to support and to push both sides if the goals are a peaceful resolution. Far too many countries in the world have demonstrated massive bias against Israel and a complete failure to take into account Israel's security concerns or even Israel's right to exist. It is little wonder that Israel's reaction to these countries would simply be "well - I guess we are on our own to defend ourselves." <br /><br />As an "honest broker," Canada was one of the countries that would routinely support annual anti-Israel resolutions of all types at the U.N. There is little that is "honest" about that position and still less that is conducive to being a "broker." <br /><br />Under the Conservative government, Canada defended Israel's right to respond to rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza in 2009 and to rocket attacks from Hezbollah in 2009. This defence of Israel's position is what so many people have opposed as being a departure from the "honest broker" role. But it makes no moral sense to stand by and not say anything while Hamas decides to fire rockets at Israeli civilians from the Gaza strip or while Hezbollah tries to attack civilians in Tel-Aviv. Any "honest" country would readily acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself with whatever force was required in those circumstances. And that is precisely what Canada did, even though it had very little international company.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023517491118585407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1710228798415703303.post-6220743904276933942014-01-17T16:50:29.624-05:002014-01-17T16:50:29.624-05:00I'm uncomfortable with the connection you make...I'm uncomfortable with the connection you make - just because we are more like Israel and Israelis, doesn't mean we must support Israel rather then playing the honest broker. Yes, there is something natural in siding with those we identify with, but it can make for a destabilizing foreign policy.<br /><br />More importantly, I note that you point out that we have the "credibility with the Israeli government" necessary to help them work towards peace, but how is it useful to have a country that has credibility with one side - those are a dime a dozen. What is more useful to the peace process is a country that has credibility with both sides - and that is what Canada once aspired to be.<br /><br />Of course, there is value in countries saying 'to hell with neutrality, it is time to follow our convictions of right and wrong", but there was also value in our previous 'neutral/honest broker' role.<br /><br />(And on an unrelated point, it doesn't make sense to me that the Canadian government is paying the way for the 150-200 guests of Harper on this trip.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com