Harper softens support for Israel, responding to polls?

[gc]

We all know that Stephen Harper called Israel's response a "measured response" at the beginning of the conflict (July 13th I believe).

Since then, he has either said little about the conflict or has defended his initial position. Ok fair enough, he has taken a firm stance and stood behind his comments. I think this is one reason why many people in Canada respect Harper.

Today, it seems, he has softened his support for Israel . Interestingly, this softening of support seems to come just after polls show that only 32% of Canadians back his stance on the middle east
The Globe and Mail and that the Conservatives are slipping in the polls CTV

CORNWALL, Ont. — Prime Minister Stephen Harper softened his tone on the Middle East Friday in an interview on Quebec television, saying a lot has changed in the three weeks since he called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a “measured response.”

“We were talking about three weeks ago when Hezbollah took Israeli soldiers hostage, and an initial response,” Mr. Harper told the TVA network in French.

"But now we have a completely different situation from three weeks ago, as I've said many times. We have a full-blown conflict, almost a war. And it's hard to say whether a response is proportional to another. It's a war."

The Globe and Mail

The reason he has given for softening his stance is that he was commenting on the "initial response", not what has been happening in the few weeks since then. I find it odd, however, that in those few weeks Harper didn't say anything to contradict his initial assessment of a "measured response". Instead, three weeks later (after polls showing many Canadians opposed to his stance), he decides to change his position. Yet this is the same PM who claims to make his decisions based on "principles not polls"

Principles not polls will govern how the Conservatives establish policy, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at a Friday news conference in Cornwall, Ont., when asked about his stance on the Middle East and the softwood lumber agreement.

"We don't make decisions in our governments based on polls," Harper said.

CBC

So why exactly did Harper change his tone, is it because he really believes that Israel's response might not be so measured afterall (in which case, why did he wait 3 weeks to say so?), or is it because the polls show him losing support because of his support for Israel? What ever happened to principles before politics??

 

[Nuggler]

:roll: ummmmmmmmmmmmphhhhhhhh grunt.........FLIP :!: :!:

:? AAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrr.....heaveeeeeee.........grunt.......FLOP :!: :!:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..........OOOOOOOOOOOH........FLIP :!: :!:

8O OHHHHHH.....NEWWWW POLESSSS......UMPH..........FLOP :!: :!:

I stand behind everything you say..........FLIP

mmmmmmmeasureddddd....arghhhhhhhhhhhhh.........resppp......FLOP

:idea:

 

[cortex]

Oh the power of bullshit language!

How describing the destruction now being committed by Isreal --as a measured response--could be considered principled......is surreal

Just what principle is being invoked here.

Perhaps the double standard.

The source of the problem is the failure to comply with UN resolution 242 by a rogue state.

What the Canadian leadership should be saying is that yes--Isreal has a right to exist---but it must stop behaving like a rogue state. We should be trying to help Isreal enter the community of nations that at least have a modicum of respect for international law--like France and much of the european Union--and this country as well. Isreal needs moral guidance not unwavering support.

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Harper softens suppor

Its not principled so much as it's ideological. Not that his voters will notice.

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Harper softens suppor

"And it's hard to say whether a response is proportional to another."

wonder why he did it in the first place then.

no I don't

he was grandstanding again.

 

[sanch]

I think what this situation has done is exposed some deeply troubling and dangerous sentiments in the conservative community that could threaten Canada's national security and the overall rights of its citizens.

1) I have noticed on this board and others that conservatives are willing to justify the killing of Canadian women and children if it suits their political purpose and if these individuals belong to an ethnic group they do not like.

2) There are also a few too many posts by conservatives about taking away the citizenship of Canadians whom they do not like because they belong to the wrong ethnic group.

Now it should be noted that if a non-Caucasian group voiced similar sentiments there would be an uproar by conservatives about these individuals being terrorists.

What should be done?
The comments in 1 & 2 seem co-coordinated and part of group discourse. The Department of Justice should investigate to see if there has been a violation of hate propaganda laws and whether the actions by conservatives meet the criteria for the ideological stage of the formation of a militia. If found in the affirmative then parliament should immediately begin to enact legislation to disarm the entire Canadian population.

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

Flip-Floppity-Flip-Flip-Flop

 

[Karlin]

Our PM is showing his weakness I think...

Initially, the measured response statement was based on the idea that, as Condoleeza Rice and others parrotted , that "Hezbolla started it".

They started it - no they started it - no you are - no you are is a classic childrens type of language, it is utterly gut wrenching to hear world leaders using such simpleton silly-talk. They want it to be Black and White, and it isn't.

Debating on Who started a war that is 60 years old, more like 1600 years old, or 5000 years old {Jews and Arabs ; Abraham and Ishmael] is beyond a logical conclusion. It cannot be seriously used to decide how to proceed, and anyone who does invike either side of that dumb arguement is probably just trying to distract from the real issues, which fall much more into gray areas.

Also, this Bush Side says it is the Arab's fault because : "Hezbolla kidnapped two Israeli soldiers" - this is the same sillyness that should be dedicated to black and white issues only. It might be a start of a discussion If the warmongering Western Leaders at least mentioned that Israeli jails are full of Palestine women and children - over 800 - that were taken off the streets and from their homes and were never charged with any crimes, held for months. Just for balance, so we know they are seriously trying to get to the real solutions...

What IS the root of this war? [land] Does it ever end then? [no]
So is it time to impose a settlement and send in the United Nations peacekeepers to enforce a reasonable sharing of the region? [yes]
- but Canada is now a warring nation so we cannot be trusted to monitor the area without showing favouritism to the Israelis... too bad, we were the most trusted honest broker until PM Harper changed the scope of our military forces in Canada, you jerk!!!.

k

 

[Colpy]

I think what this situation has done is exposed some deeply troubling and dangerous sentiments in the conservative community that could threaten Canada's national security and the overall rights of its citizens.

1) I have noticed on this board and others that conservatives are willing to justify the killing of Canadian women and children if it suits their political purpose and if these individuals belong to an ethnic group they do not like.

2) There are also a few too many posts by conservatives about taking away the citizenship of Canadians whom they do not like because they belong to the wrong ethnic group.

Now it should be noted that if a non-Caucasian group voiced similar sentiments there would be an uproar by conservatives about these individuals being terrorists.

What should be done?
The comments in 1 & 2 seem co-coordinated and part of group discourse. The Department of Justice should investigate to see if there has been a violation of hate propaganda laws and whether the actions by conservatives meet the criteria for the ideological stage of the formation of a militia. If found in the affirmative then parliament should immediately begin to enact legislation to disarm the entire Canadian population.

I guess it is not paranoia if they really are out to get you, eh?

First of all, have you ever heard of freedom of speech? That means all speech, not JUST what you agree with. Oh, sorry, you're a lefty. Guess not.

AND, BTW, We have a right to be armed. It exists in English Common Law. Look up the Bill of Rights of 1689, part of our constitutional history.

I get such a kick out of some of the left.

They have absolutely no concept of Liberty.

 

[Just the Facts]

I'm not exactly sure I see how he's changed his position. He said the situation has changed over the last three weeks. Can we dispute that? What he's saying makes sense to me, it's war. There is no such thing as measured response in war. War is just war, you do what you can to win.

 

[elevennevele]

RE: Harper softens suppor

I’m too put off to really respond to this. To watch him now slide or try to deflect fault in his original stance without showing real responsibility for it.

And again it’s not the first time.

 

[gc]

I'm not exactly sure I see how he's changed his position. He said the situation has changed over the last three weeks. Can we dispute that? What he's saying makes sense to me, it's war. There is no such thing as measured response in war. War is just war, you do what you can to win.

He changed his position because first he said it was a "measured response" and now he says that "it's hard to say whether a response is proportional to another". Sounds different to me. And yes the situation has changed and escalated over the last 3 weeks, but the war has still been going on for 3 weeks. That is three weeks for Harper to say that "now we have a completely different situation...". So why did it take him three weeks to acknowledge that the situation has changed? Could it be because that's when the polls came out showing him losing support?

 

[sanch]

I guess it is not paranoia if they really are out to get you, eh?

First of all, have you ever heard of freedom of speech? That means all speech, not JUST what you agree with. Oh, sorry, you're a lefty. Guess not.

AND, BTW, We have a right to be armed. It exists in English Common Law. Look up the Bill of Rights of 1689, part of our constitutional history.

I get such a kick out of some of the left.

They have absolutely no concept of Liberty.

So you have the right to liberty but Canadians whose residence you don't agree with don't have the right to call themselves Canadians from your point of view.

Or Canadians who find themselves living in a war zone should be blown up because they are on the side that you don't agree with. This includes women and children.

And then you talk about freedom of speech. Nonsense. If you do not respect that right for others you have no right to claim it for yourselves.

You have to remember that the alleged terrorists in Toronto or recently in Miami were only at the talking stage. Yet they were arrested. Where is the right to freedom of speech you exalt here? If individuals on the right who are white engage in similar discussions they should be arrested as well.

Some conservatives are dangerously close to crossing that line and this should be investigated to see how widespread this is. If it was another Canadian ethnic group ( a visible minority) how many conservatives would be lined up to demand their arrest?

My point is that if you look historically at areas of the world where you have the kind of ethnic strife that is emerging in Canada, and these groups are armed as well, then you have a good recipe for civil war. Best to disarm before that happens.

If you notice I said all Canadians should be disarmed. With heightened security on the US/Canada border it will be possible to control the illegal flow of guns thus eliminating the argument that criminals will still get guns.

Slavery as well as piracy was also legal in 1689 so I don’t see what the point in invoking any legal referent from that period is. England the country of legal origin in this case has changed its gun laws.

 

[#juan]

Just the Facts wrote:
I'm not exactly sure I see how he's changed his position. He said the situation has changed over the last three weeks. Can we dispute that? What he's saying makes sense to me, it's war. There is no such thing as measured response in war. War is just war, you do what you can to win.

War is not just war when one side has a few small arms and a bunch of cast off garbage rockets that can't hit anything except by accident, while the other side has the very latest tanks, artillery, and jet fighter/bombers with laser guided bombs. If Harper can't see that, he's blind as well as stupid.

 

[Colpy]

So you have the right to liberty but Canadians whose residence you don't agree with don't have the right to call themselves Canadians from your point of view.

No, in fact I don't agree that we can distinguish one Canadian from another simply by where they live or their race. If they are expressing support for Hezbollah, as were the family of those killed, THEN I have my doubts.

What I WAS defending was anybody's RIGHT to express an OPINION on who should be considered Canadian without being threatened by hate laws.

You have to remember that the alleged terrorists in Toronto or recently in Miami were only at the talking stage. Yet they were arrested. Where is the right to freedom of speech you exalt here? If individuals on the right who are white engage in similar discussions they should be arrested as well.

There is a BIG difference between expressing an opinion and conspiracy to commit mass murder. If you don't see that.......

My point is that if you look historically at areas of the world where you have the kind of ethnic strife that is emerging in Canada, and these groups are armed as well, then you have a good recipe for civil war. Best to disarm before that happens.

Oh, you mean like the Tutsuis being unarmed in Rwanda prevented civil war there...............

If you notice I said all Canadians should be disarmed. With heightened security on the US/Canada border it will be possible to control the illegal flow of guns thus eliminating the argument that criminals will still get guns.

If they can't control the flow of drugs, a consumable product that requires the import of tons per year, how do you expect them to control the import of guns, which last 100 years?.......That is ignoring the fact there are AT LEAST 10 million guns in Canada now. I own about 20, and I'd hand them out on a street corner to strangers before I turned them in to the government.

Slavery as well as piracy was also legal in 1689 so I don’t see what the point in invoking any legal referent from that period is. England the country of legal origin in this case has changed its gun laws.

Like I said, you guys do not understand Liberty, as it is today, and how carefully it needs to be maintained and handed down.

 

[Colpy]

Just the Facts wrote:
I'm not exactly sure I see how he's changed his position. He said the situation has changed over the last three weeks. Can we dispute that? What he's saying makes sense to me, it's war. There is no such thing as measured response in war. War is just war, you do what you can to win.

War is not just war when one side has a few small arms and a bunch of cast off garbage rockets that can't hit anything except by accident, while the other side has the very latest tanks, artillery, and jet fighter/bombers with laser guided bombs. If Harper can't see that, he's blind as well as stupid.

Tell that to the Vietnamese.....or to the Russians, late of Afghanistan.

 

[sanch]

Re: RE: Harper softens support for Israel, responding to pol

No, in fact I don't agree that we can distinguish one Canadian from another simply by where they live or their race. If they are expressing support for Hezbollah, as were the family of those killed, THEN I have my doubts.

Hezbollah is in the population and it is not clear who they are. That is why they are such a formidable enemy. With the minimal intelligence available how do you know they were expressing support?

What I WAS defending was anybody's RIGHT to express an OPINION on who should be considered Canadian without being threatened by hate laws.

Most of these posts I was referring to went way beyond that. I have also not heard anything as lofty as debate coming from the conservatives. Most of it is phallic posturing of which the gun is a symbolic extension.

You have to remember that the alleged terrorists in Toronto or recently in Miami were only at the talking stage. Yet they were arrested. Where is the right to freedom of speech you exalt here? If individuals on the right who are white engage in similar discussions they should be arrested as well.

There is a BIG difference between expressing an opinion and conspiracy to commit mass murder. If you don't see that.......

This is subjective and I am sure the defense in Canada and Miami will be that these were just guys bantering away and the construct of conspiracy was wrongly imposed.

Oh, you mean like the Tutsuis being unarmed in Rwanda prevented civil war there...............

This was genocide. As examples of civil strife we have Iraq and Lebanon and mistakes were made in both cases in not disarming the citizens.

If you notice I said all Canadians should be disarmed. With heightened security on the US/Canada border it will be possible to control the illegal flow of guns thus eliminating the argument that criminals will still get guns.

I own about 20, and I'd hand them out on a street corner to strangers before I turned them in to the government ... Like I said, you guys do not understand Liberty, as it is today, and how carefully it needs to be maintained and handed down.

I am trying to reconcile these two thoughts. If you don't trust the government what is the institution that is supposed to be in charge of handing down liberty and maintaining it? This doesn't make sense to me.

What I basically have an issue with is fostering and enabling extremism in whatever guise it takes. This is especially an issue among Muslims. This was an issue here on the left as well where moderate leftists just silently supported or even agreed with a lot of very far out stuff. And now the right is doing the same enabling of extremists. There is a point where the line is crossed and I think people of the same affiliation are unable to see it.

 

[Colpy]

Hezbollah is in the population and it is not clear who they are. That is why they are such a formidable enemy. With the minimal intelligence available how do you know they were expressing support?

You misunderstood. In the CBC news clip where the relatives of those Canadians that were killed in Lebanon (a horrible thing, most of them children) the aunt in Montreal cried out her support for Hezbollah, ending with "Hezbollah is outr protector".

Well, they're doing a damn poor job.

Now, I would be willing to overlook that outburst as the ravings of one overwhelmed with rage and grief. However, I suspect support for Hezbollah, Hamas. and other banned groups runs fairly deep in the Islamic community, and I would chuck anyone supporting these people out of the country SOOOO fast.

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

Re: RE: Harper softens support for Israel, responding to pol

Hezbollah is in the population and it is not clear who they are. That is why they are such a formidable enemy. With the minimal intelligence available how do you know they were expressing support?

You misunderstood. In the CBC news clip where the relatives of those Canadians that were killed in Lebanon (a horrible thing, most of them children) the aunt in Montreal cried out her support for Hezbollah, ending with "Hezbollah is outr protector".

Well, they're doing a damn poor job.

Now, I would be willing to overlook that outburst as the ravings of one overwhelmed with rage and grief. However, I suspect support for Hezbollah, Hamas. and other banned groups runs fairly deep in the Islamic community, and I would chuck anyone supporting these people out of the country SOOOO fast.

Please look into the fact that Hezbollah is the biggest charity donor in Lebanon and then wonder why they they have such strong support.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Harper softens support for Israel, responding to pol

Hezbollah is in the population and it is not clear who they are. That is why they are such a formidable enemy. With the minimal intelligence available how do you know they were expressing support?

You misunderstood. In the CBC news clip where the relatives of those Canadians that were killed in Lebanon (a horrible thing, most of them children) the aunt in Montreal cried out her support for Hezbollah, ending with "Hezbollah is outr protector".

Well, they're doing a damn poor job.

Now, I would be willing to overlook that outburst as the ravings of one overwhelmed with rage and grief. However, I suspect support for Hezbollah, Hamas. and other banned groups runs fairly deep in the Islamic community, and I would chuck anyone supporting these people out of the country SOOOO fast.

Please look into the fact that Hezbollah is the biggest charity donor in Lebanon and then wonder why they they have such strong support.

Oh, I understand that Hezbollah runs a massive good worlks program in Lebanon. It is how they bought their way into the affections, and the communities of the people there, who are now paying the price for accepting alms from vipers.