Today Gilles Duceppe has telegraphed his intentions. I think he and Mr. Layton dislike Mr. Ignatieff a wee bit more than Mr. Harper right now.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d904e/d904ead740a42c5b5053b648c990c018afd1129f" alt="Photobucket"
The "What Do I Know Grit"
Random Burin St. George's MP Judy Foote has confirmed that if the equalization changes remain, she'll be voting no to the federal budget. Foote says a solution needs to be found to resolve this province's financial losses.
Liberal MP's from this province admit they have been hearing from constituents in the wake of the province's outcry over the damage caused by changes to the equalization formula. There have been talks with the federal Liberals to seek an amendment, and even to have the fiscal measure that impacts this province delayed for a year. Still, if nothing changes, Foote is prepared to cast her vote for Newfoundland and Labrador.
St. John's South Mount Pearl MP Siobhan Coady isn't as direct, but told VOCM Niteline with Ryan Cleary, she and her colleagues are working with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador is treated fairly.
Premier Danny Williams has asked Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to consider amending the implementation of changes to equalization.Williams says Ignatieff could do two things: ask Harper to withdraw the changes or add an amendment, which he believes would be supported by all 7 Newfoundland and Labrador MP's.
Williams has also spoken with the premiers of PEI and Quebec asking for their support.
He puts the numbers in perspective, saying the impact is about three thousand dollars per person. He says we already have the highest debt per capita, and the impact of the budget change only makes it worse.
Meantime, Premier Williams has confirmed Nova Scotia's side deal with the federal government. Williams says in talking with Premier Rodney McDonald to firm up support on the equalization issue, he learned Nova Scotia would not be be impacted by the offset losses. Williams says we are affected similarly, but have been offered nothing. Williams says it is his understanding the deal was struck following January's First Minister's meeting.
NDP Leader Jack Leyton says he is working with the Premier and Newfoundland and Labrador's MP's to provide fairness to the province.
What this amendment does is to give Stephen Harper an option: be accountable. Be open. Be responsive to Canadians. If you don’t take that option, pal, we will defeat you. That’s not a threat. It’s a promise.
It is fair to say that the budget has not passed. It is fair to say the budget will not pass – it will not pass if the Conservative Party does not do what Liberals, and Canadians, require of them.
Accountability isn’t just a word, you know. It is a cornerstone of our democracy. And the fact is, the Conservatives have not been accountable. They have not been straight with Canadians. The effect of this of amendment is to force them to be accountable. It forces them to be straight with Canadians. It keeps that sword hanging over their heads.
This amendment has ample constitutional, legal and political precedent, and those things are important. But what is most important is what Canadians want out of their government: a government that listens to them. A government that respects them. A government that remembers who is the boss.
Canadians, you see, are the boss. Not Stephen Harper. Today, with this measure, we are reminding him of that. And if he doesn’t change his ways, we will defeat him.
Raitt said she and her departmental officials received an "e-mail briefing" on the leak the day after it occurred.
"There are some aspects that came out today that we weren't fully aware of," the minister said yesterday
"Now Hamas knows what Israel does when it is attacked. Also the world knows what Israel does when attacked, and even accepts it."
At the conference in Kuwait, even leaders of Arab states friendly to the U.S. lashed out at Israel for using excessive force. "Our weaponless families in Gaza are facing an atrocious Israeli aggression targeting innocents and demolishing all pillars of life," said Kuwaiti Emir Sabah Ahmad Sabah, calling Israel's offensive a "crime against humanity" and a "blatant violation of the simplest principles of human rights."
"We support the right of people to resist the occupation," he said. "But a resistance is responsible in front of its people . . . for the victims and suffering it leads to."
"This is the outset of the victory and the resistance would complete it with making more achievements in the future," the news agency quoted the president as saying. "The occupiers' withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, removal of the Israeli blockades from the besieged area and reopening of the border crossings would pave the grounds for a complete victory."
The Israeli assault on Gaza shouldn't have come as a surprise.
There had been wide speculation that in the dying days of the Bush administration, either Iranian nuclear facilities would be bombed by U.S./Israel, or the Gaza Strip attacked, with American backing.
Not only did the White House give the green light – no surprise – but Ehud Olmert is boasting that he telephoned George W. Bush to order Condoleezza Rice to abstain from voting on the Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal.
"She was left shamed – a resolution that she prepared and arranged and in the end didn't vote for," Olmert said Monday.
The Israeli-U.S.-Canadian axis is at odds with the United Nations and much of the world where there's near universal condemnation of Israel.
As during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which Stephen Harper famously described as "a measured response," his government is flying in the face of facts.
Peter Kent's was only the most egregious example, parroting the Israeli spin on the bombing of a school that killed 43, a version that has since been doubted.
Now Michael Ignatieff is parroting Harper. An ostensible lifelong advocate of human rights, he is defending what human rights groups are condemning as possible war crimes.
Given the disparity between the Harper-Ignatieff position and Canadian public sentiment, we face a growing democratic deficit.
Israeli officials suggested the end might be close to its offensive despite its rejection of a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.
"The decision of the (UN) Security Council doesn't give us much leeway," Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai told public radio.
"Thus it would seem that we are close to ending the ground operation and ending the operation altogether."
Earlier, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel was nearing the goals it had set for its operation, but that fighting would continue for now.
"Israel is approaching these goals, but more patience and determination are required," Olmert told a cabinet meeting.
Israel has "dealt Hamas an unprecedented blow," government secretary Oved Yehezkel quoted him as telling ministers. "It will never be the same Hamas."
Israeli forces have demolished some 200 smuggling tunnels beneath the Gaza-Egypt border -- Hamas's main resupply route -- representing two-thirds of the total, military spokeswoman Avital Leibovich said.
The invasion could also spark a bloody, prolonged war pitting Israeli soldiers against Hamas fighters in winding streets, alleys and apartment hallways. Hamas is believed to have about 20,000 armed fighters and has been preparing for an Israeli invasion.
While I agree with the statement of the Leader of the Liberal Party about the situation in the Gaza, I feel our party should have mentioned the extreme concern over the loss of civilian death, in particular the children of Palestine. I feel we as Liberals should call for an immediate ceasefire which is needed to allow for the delivery of much needed civilian and medical supplies. I also feel a need for a call for the ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza to be lifted immediately as per the Supreme Court of Israel's own decision.
J. Curran - January 10, 2009
An Unnecessary War
By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 8, 2009
I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.
After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.
Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.
We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.
Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.
After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.
Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).
We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.
On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.
After 12 days of "combat," the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.
The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.
The writer was president from 1977 to 1981. He founded the Carter Center, a nongovernmental organization advancing peace and health worldwide, in 1982.
History repeats itself
Today at 8:16am
On August 1, 2006, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Standing Committee had an emergency meeting to discuss the escalation of violence in the middle east. I participated in the debate then and here's part of what I said.
"Canadians expect their government not to be neutral like you said, Mr. Van Loan, but to be fair and to condemn violence against civilians by all parties and the best way to do it is by calling for an immediate ceasefire, and not to talk about it as an abstraction. It's not an abstraction to the civilians, including Canadians who are caught up in the crossfire over there. It's not a philosophical debate. It's a real tragedy where Canadians and other civilians are being subjected to ongoing violence on both sides, in Israel and in Lebanon and also we can't forget the Palestinian territories.
We must have the moral courage to ask for a ceasefire immediately and then bring all the sides to which you're referring to the negotiating table. We can set the conditions that are needed to make a sustainable ceasefire. But you cannot, for anybody who has an ounce of heart, watch the civilian devastation and destruction and say I'm reluctant to ask for a ceasefire right now......it is imperative to send a message, a signal, that Canada unconditionally always stands on the side of protection of civilians on all sides."
Neal said... :
So is this your typical "debating" style - just change the subject? Not sure what a UN truck bombing has to do with the conversation we are (or were) having.
The UN and IRC have been known to "allow" their vehicles to be used for weapons transport. So - was the UN truck bombing on purpose due to some intelligence suggesting that it was being used for some nefarious purpose - or was it a tragic mistake? I don't know - and neither do you. Are YOU suggesting that the Israelis intentionally targeted a UN truck and killed an innocent man for the pure amusement of it? Sure seems that way.
All snark aside - you are a bigot and an anti-semite. The fact that you don't see that and try to present yourself as the exact opposite is amusing, but unconvincing.
Jan 9, 2009 3:06:00 PM