http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic le_PrintFriendly <http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Arti cle_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1156592170979&call_pageid=968256290204> &c=Article&cid=1156592170979&call_pageid=968256290204 The Americanization of Canada by Harper Prime Minister walking in lockstep with Bush, says Haroon Siddiqui Aug. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM HAROON <http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Pa ge&cid=968256290204&ce=Columnist&colid=969907621513> SIDDIQUI _____
I n 2003, much of our media and the Bay St. establishment, along with some conservative politicians, such as Ernie Eves, favoured George W. Bush's plans to invade Iraq. Most Canadians didn't. Jean Chrétien sided with the people. This year, much of our media and part of the corporate establishment, along with most Conservatives and even some Liberals, favour the American combat tactics in Afghanistan. They also back Bush's full support of the Israeli war on Lebanon. Canadians don't. Stephen Harper has ignored the people. You may like or dislike his act as the chief cheerleader for Israel and the United States. You may even feel cheated that he had kept his ideology well concealed prior to and during the last election. But at least you know where he stands now. What you do not know, except in a vague way, is where the main Liberal leadership aspirants stand. They stand in different spots, on different days. Harper's assertion that the Israeli actions in Lebanon were a measured response to the provocations of Hezbollah was only the start of his reading from the American script. Bush stalled a ceasefire. So did Harper. Bush said no to American troops in a multinational force. Harper said no to Canadian participation. Bush cast the Israeli offensive as a "struggle between the forces of freedom and the force of terror." So did Harper. Bush tied Lebanon to the larger (failed) war on terrorism. So did Harper. At times, Harper sounded more hawkish than the Republican neocon hawks. Bush called the massacre at Qana "awful," but Harper stayed mum, and his office made a point of saying that he would stay mum on the tragedy. His MPs were coached to say they were "deeply saddened by the deaths and injury of innocent people caused by extremist organizations in Lebanon, Israel and the world." Israel was not responsible for Israeli bombs killing and maiming civilians. By the third week of the war, Harper tried to mitigate his "measured" response position. But he only augmented it: "Frankly, we were talking about three weeks ago when Hezbollah took Israeli soldiers hostage ... But now we have a completely different situation ... We have a full-blown conflict, almost a war, and it's hard to say whether a response is proportional." (My emphasis). At times, the Prime Minister has not even sounded like Canada's leader, as in refusing to protest the bombing deaths of a Montreal family of eight and that of an unarmed Canadian peacekeeper. At one time, he tried to rationalize his stance this way: "There's a lot of long-term strategic interests of this country and of the world at stake here." Protecting our trade with the U.S., of course. That, for him, might mean supporting Bush, even when he disagrees. Or, more likely, it might mean he fully shares the president's geopolitical outlook and wants to align Canada with the U.S. Inflammatory statements by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and by Jason Kenney, the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, suggest so. Then there's Harper's affinity for John Howard, Australia's right-wing prime minister. And there's Harper's speech in London in July touting the virtues and values of the English-speaking world, a.k.a. the white man's club. Combine all that and you get a good idea why Harper has been so sure-footed in making Canada complicit in the death and destruction in Lebanon. The issue here is not whether we should fight terrorism but rather how. It is not whether the world should stand by Israel but rather how. In Lebanon, the argument has not been whether Israel had a right to retaliate against Hezbollah, but how. As British Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells put it: "If they are chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation." Or, as Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard, said: An eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the strong pummel the weak at will and relentlessly, they dilute their moral currency and guarantee further wars. A recent editorial in The New York Times said: "Washington helps Israel best when it supplements, and where necessary restrains, Israeli actions, not when it acts as a mindless echo chamber. America abdicated leadership in this crisis." So did Harper, by blindly following Bush on a failed mission that even a majority of Israelis are questioning furiously. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
