Tim Powers published an article today in the Globe and Mail speculating on who might be in the cabinet if Jack Layton were to form a government. I just about choked when he mentioned Libby Davies as Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is, after all the NDP MP who demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of history when she stated that the Israel has been occupying Palestinian territories since 1948 (the year Israel came into existence) and that "it’s the longest occupation in history". She was caught on video making these comments at an anti-Israeli government protest in Vancouver on June 5, 2010.
Now, were Ms. Davies to have checked her history, she would have found the Israeli military didn't move into the West Bank and Gaza until 1967, as a result of an imminent threat of attack by Jordan, Egypt and Syria. So, for example, Tibet, which has been occupied by communist China since 1950, has been occupied far longer. In history, other longer occupations include the German annexation of Alsace-Moselle (from 1871-1918), the Russian (Soviet) occupation of the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia)(1940-1991, broken by the German occupation of the area from 1941-1944), and the Allied occupation of Berlin (1945-1990).
She also would have found that from 1948-1967 the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan.
The key point here is that, for all that Jack Layton wants to show his party as being ready to lead, this is a party which has not yet shown itself to be "a government in waiting". Had a member of the Liberal or Conservative caucus displayed such blatant bias against the existence of the state of Israel, along with a ridiculous lack of knowledge in the areas of history and geo-politics (and an apparent unawareness of the existence of Wikipedia, where she could have checked her facts before embarrassing herself), said member would have at the very least been publicly admonished and demoted by the leader of their party.
Instead, the only member of her party to call her out was Thomas Mulcair, who earned the enmity of other NDP MPs and supporters for his efforts. And the question also must be asked - was Jack Layton's refusal to remove her from the post of deputy leader (a position she holds to this day) a sign of tacit agreement on his part with her basic views (if not her blundered exposition of same)? Is an NDP government one which would take the side of Palestinian radicals (aka Hamas) against Israel, for all the talk of "even-handedness"?
The fundamental question the voter is led to is this:
Is the NDP under Jack Layton fit or competent to lead Canada as Prime Minister? The evidence says not.
As the state of Israel was established in Palestine that means that technically speaking she is correct. There was Palestine there inhabited by Palestinians and then with the British controlling the state of Palestine it arranged for the creation of parallel institutions under control of what were to be the Israelis and this was nurtured and built up in Palestine until it could seize control of much of it and establish a regime that was contrary to the interests of those who were not imported from Europe.
ReplyDeleteThe Covenant of the League of Nations envisaged an independent Palestine to be preceded with a brief period of "tutelage" under one of the Mandatory powers. The Covenant was very clear about self-rule and near-term independence for all the former Ottoman territories. Palestine of course was not given self-rule, it was subject to British-run dictatorship for the purpose of allowing the creation of the parallel entity on its territory.
The British had a problem in that they had to cycle their officials frequently as officials staying there long enough became quickly aware of the immorality of what they were doing, were accused of "going native" and removed by their commanders in London who, not being there, did not have to think too much about the consequences of their actions.