Good Ignatieff Speech

Credit where it's due. Good policy. Good tone.

PS. Observing the usual suspects' (many NDP-affiliated it seems) slavering delight at Fowler's honest exposition of Middle East importance to Canada & world, and domestic implications, it reminds one of the difficulty of having this discussion. Fowler could do so in Montreal, knowing the crowd he was speaking to, and knowing a lot Jewish Liberal supporters would be in the room, and watching elsewhere, so no question of dirty play. Honest discussion. But once spoken, usual suspects leap on with delight. There's something not kosher about a youtube video titled "Fowler - MPs chasing Jewish Vote destroying Cdn foreign policy". Why not also "MPs chasing Tamil & Sikh vote" or "chasing Diaspora vote", etc.? That was Fowler's larger point, and he was honest enough when speaking about one very important specific situation to say that the wooing of the Jewish vote is a problem in this regard, rather than the usual "pro-Israel" (inaccurate) or "likudnik" or "pro-right wing extremists" weasel words, usually accompanied with an evocation of their fundamentalist Christian supporters.

Fowler called it straight, across the board, and was right about everything. And he spoke right in the face of an audience who would really rather not he said out loud what they mostly know privately, re. Afghanistan, Middle East, Vision, Principle, Misallocation of Resources, Attention Urgently Needed for Africa, etc.. And he did so freely, knowing his audience was up to it, and he was playing fair and they would know it.

But the problem is then all the little, um, dirtbags, who at the very least seem to have existential hate-ons for Israel, and maybe worse than that, maybe for the majority of its population, and their co-religionists in Canada and elsewhere, these little shits then leap on his words to engage in discourse coloured by something a bit off, if not worse.

If we are going to change our policies for the better, and help the parties in the Middle East achieve peace, truth must be told. Pressure must be put. Emanuel is doing so, mostly privately, as Kissinger did, and as many others, of all backgrounds have done, over the years. Canada is off course right now, and that must change, for the reasons Fowler cited.

But every time a man of good will speaks out, there is sick behaviour from anti-State of Israel (SOI) types (I can't presume it denotes even worse attitudes, without evidence - too heavy a charge), and often, to be honest, Likudniks. And so the tendency is to self-censor, because one never knows who's listening, who's in the crowd, and what use will be made of statements.

But the more we censor ourselves, for fear of giving comfort to bigots, the more the Likudniks & the anti-SOI types dominate the discourse. And the Conservatives' policy is so biased, the politically correct discourse now so slanted, that the anti-SOI bunch have been getting correspondingly worse, as well. Sociologically understandable, as they feel excluded, and that's what happens, in those situations.

To stop the cycle, we have to speak out, clearly, from a liberal realist perspective. But we have to choose our moments, so as to prevent its use by the worst elements, as much as possible. But the cycle has to be broken, and that can only happen by speaking out.

Well and good. Fowler got it right. But I can't tell you the number of times I have ended up in the bizarre position of defending Israeli & USA govt actions with which I disagree, as I have found myself in discussions where it was pretty one-sided and decontextualised, and it made me very uncomfortable, although nothing overtly bigoted was said. So I'm a huge critic of Likudniks and USA Mideast policy, generally, and yet I end up seeming like Ariel Sharon's more extreme twin.

It's a tough one, because just to retreat to backroom discussions with sound chaps means no effective pressure is put, politically, in populist terms, and to engage publicly is rife with difficulties, as noted. But we must. We must speak out. No change will come otherwise. But we must pick our moments as best possible, so as not to have our words misused and twisted.

Fowler done good. But the rest of us liberal realists, to follow his example, must be careful. We must be open and frank. But also careful about the time and place and phrasing. It's so much easier with Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Tibet, etc.. But there one is. Different strokes for different folks.