Or at least, this reading masks the underlying message of the poll, which is less comforting to progressives. That is, while 45% supported Harper's position, and 44% decried it as "too pro-Israel", another 11% feel it is not pro-Israel enough. Which means that 56% of Canadians support a stance at least as hard as the one Harper is currently taking.
To me the political calculation Harper will make is to work the 11% on-side by maintaining a hard line or adopting a harder line, rather than "back-track" and lose some of the 45% he has already go in the bag. Therefore, from looking at this one poll at least, I don't see the Tories being harmed by "aligning" Canada's position more closely with that of the United States on this issue.
Mind you, 62% of Quebecers see the government position as being too pro-Israel, so Harper has been setting up obstacles in his own quest to win more seats in that province. Its very hard to see his path to a majority by this route anymore, especially since the fiscal imbalance fix is going to amount to much less than advertised.
6 comments:
Harper, Lebanon, and knee jerk liberal responses ...
Harper comes out strongly in favour of Israel's response to the kidnapping of its citizens and the launching of missiles on its cities from a neighbouring country. Harper is immediately pounced on for saying that Israel's response is a "measured" one. The Israeli army is forcing citizens of Lebanon to evacuate from villages and cities in the south of Lebanon, giving them warnings before starting to bomb Hezbollah hideouts, arms depots and command posts built there. Israel also bombs other sites further north, aiming at launch sites of missiles and the Hezbollah leadership.
Much blood is shed on both sides.
Peter Mackay sides with Condie Rice and Boss Bush: there must be an effective peace. Israel's right to exist must be recognized. Peace must be restored and policed.
Many liberals call for an immediate cessation of fighting by all sides, while leaving Hezbollah intact, presumably to fight again another day.
And what does Bob Rae say? Something I agree with – in his July 17 statement on the Middle East, at his website, he is quoted as saying:
"Canada should have used the last 72 hours to make the case for UN peacekeepers on the border between Lebanon and Israel, accompanied by a firm timetable for a ceasefire and disengagement. The G8 proposals provide a good framework."
"The issue is not simply Israel's right to defend itself - it is how to police a border, how to reduce tension, how to create the preconditions for dialogue. Israel has a right to live in peace within secure, internationally recognized borders. At the moment this clearly requires the presence of peace monitors. Lebanon cannot and will not do it and has called for a UN presence on its soil to assist in this. The UN must respond."
"Canada's further efforts need to focus on the refusal of both Hezbollah and Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These radical groups, clearly fuelled by money and other assistance from Iran and Syria, point to the biggest obstacle to peace: an inability to accept Israel as a legitimate country in the region. Ideologies that cannot accept the presence of other people, with different religions, languages, and loyalties, are a profound threat to the peace of the world."
A realistic view, which calls for Canada to exercise its traditional role of peace-bringer, but which also cuts to the heart of the problem, as in his last paragraph quoted above.
Bob Rae's response is a far more positive one than the superficial one of Harper.
I guess Bob Rae did put it better than Harper, although I still prefer Jack Layton's stance.
However, I am saddened by the number of Canadians who do not see Israel's retaliation as excessive. I receive info and pictures from independent journalists who are in the region, and they tell of a situation much worse than what is being portrayed in the media (liberal or otherwise).
Curiousity.., you say that Israel has warned the Lebanese people to leave their homes and villages before they bomb them. However, from reports that I've received, the bombs were falling as people were fleeing, and also the roads, highways, bridges were bombed before the people had a chance to reach them. So how are they supposed to leave??
Yes, Israel has a right to exist and defend herself. However, this existence does not mean usurping Palestinian land and treating Palestinians as subhuman, and does not mean bombing a country back to the Stone Age in retaliation for the actions of an armed group which does not represent the people of Lebanon or Gaza. Even by the Middle East's propensity for "an eye for an eye", Israel's force is totally disproportionate, any way you look at it. If you don't believe me, please look at the pictures of scorched, dead children, and watch CNN's latest short VIDEO of 4 such children from one family, who were bombed as they were fleeing, following Israel's warnings. In addition, the doctors at the hospital where these children are being intensively treated -- and may or may not survive their ordeal -- are alleging that phosphorous was used in the bombs, since the wounds show black signs of this odious chemical, and the odour of phosphorous is evident.
You will find these pictures and others on my website, as well as reports by independent journalist Dahr Jamail who is in Beirut right now.
So any way you look at it, what Israel is doing amounts to war crimes. Israel's actions are backfiring, and causing increasing hatred toward them among the Arabs, even those who were moderates previously. Plus, think of all those maimed, broken children and their families. How do you think they will view Israel (and her aiders/abettors) when they grow up? Don't you see that the cycle of violence will never stop?? What's needed in that volatile region is peacekeeping, dialogue, and negotiations toward equitable resolutions to the problems that have been present since the state of Israel was formed. Israelis must have their state without fear of invasion, but the same must hold true for Palestians. Both have a right to their own Homeland. This is what the world community must arbiter, and eventually accomplish. Both sides must be allowed to voice their opinions, grievances, concerns. The negotiations must be attended by full representatives of all concerned. The big powers, namely the US, must deal fairly, without favouring one side over the other, regardless of which lobby funnels the most funds into elected US officials' coffers.
Sadly, this is not likely to happen anytime soon, as corruption is rampant and too much money is being made from armaments (manufacturing and selling them) and wars (and rebuilding in their aftermath, etc.) by a few powerful elites who owe no allegiance to any nation only to their own greed and corrupt power).
The human condition is wrapped in misery, and bound to end in tragedy.
Nevertheless, Harper's unequivocal stand behind Israel's actions turns Canadian foreign policy completely around. Hence it makes us complicit in all crimes committed by those whom we support. I just hope all those Canadians who support Harper's stance -- or shout for more Arab blood -- are able to look themselves in the mirror and sleep at nights.
Actually it will hurt him, particularly in Quebec.
For most Canadians the Canadian government's change in its long standing policy of neutrality in Middle Eastern affairs will not factor into their vote during the next election.
However, for Arab and Muslim Canadians it will. That spells trouble for the Conservatives because most of them live in Montreal, West Quebec, Ottawa and Toronto. There is about 75 seats that have become much more difficult for the Conservatives to win in the next election.
Without them Mr. Harper will be hard pressed to win the next election let alone win a majority government.
I believe you may have misread/misinterpreted the stats.
In all likelihood, the nation came out initially split on Steve Harper’s position - followed by dropping support. Even the Ipsos-Reid poll suggests a drop away from a strong split. The momentum is negative re Harper's position... I suggest that sentiment has moved rather quickly. I suspect it is still moving strongly towards strictly partisan lines. i.e. 1/3 CPC 2/3rds the rest. Sentiment could move further if the bombing expands (possibly once Western Civilians are evacuated.)
Aside. Ipsos-Reid is generally 5% higher pro-CPC than most other numbers ex: CPAC stats for last two elections versus Iposos. CPAC nailed election night and Ipsos was apparently off by more than 5% both times.
Haha kinda sad really to watch you Liberals wallow like this...when will you just realize that Harper is great at knowing what Canadians want, and they love him for taking a solid position?
Oh well, maybe 5 years in Opposition will smarten you up. Enjoy it.
Up until today, there were only three countries (US, UK, Canada) supporting Israelis in killing of innocent women, children and civilians of Lebanon. After today's news of even UK backing off this apparent human tragedy and war crime, Canada is now the only country left. Yes ladies and gentleman, at this moment (July 30, 2006) we live in the only country in the whole globe that its head of state hasn't yet condemns Israel or at least asked for Israeli restrain (somthing that even Bush has done). sad, sad, SAD.
Post a Comment