Feel free to browse our Northern Gateway tag. We don’t hide our biases and our anti-pipeline stance is not disguised by any means. You may notice one article excerpt about the pipeline’s approval begins: “fuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUCK.” Does that answer your inquiry?
Ultimately, though, this blog isn’t about us. Biases matter, obviously; we mostly copypaste existing articles but we also clearly have a selection process. The thing is, though, that your understanding requires more work on your part than it does on ours. We’re not here to defend our personal biases; we don’t institute policy. We volunteer our time to reading the news and posting it to a tumblr. We are both biased and vocal, but justifying our biases goes beyond the scope.
I’m glad biases are important to you, but are you sure we’re the people you want to ask after?#Anonymous #northern gateway #asks
The Conservatives are strongly pro-Israel. Please let me issue a warning for that video: the heavy implication — it’s overt in every sense except that they never refer to Palestinians by name — is that Palestinians, unilaterally, are terrorists. The Conservative rhetoric about Israel is uncompromising and overtly draws on WWII and the Holocaust as a source of its support for its views, which is really difficult to argue with.
The Conservatives are disinterested in compromise or agreement; their support of Israel is absolute to the point where that video discounts “going along to get along” as “quite simply weak and wrong”, which I personally read as a rejection of mediation attempts and borders a call to arms in defense of Israel. The Conservative voter base has been historically pro-Israel so it makes political sense to make this ad, but it’s also fucking disgusting to discount all Palestinians as “terrorists,” and it’s clear that these materials are more about securing voters and putting forth a certain image of Canadian support than it is about actually proportionately held views. I would think that if there are any Conservatives that are more ambiguous on their support of Israel, they are keeping their mouths shut.
The Liberals just reiterated recently they were pro-Israel, but Justin Trudeau is being viewed as not standing with Harper, or at least as comparatively silent on the issue, and I think it’s safe to say that not all Liberals do or would support Israel outright. I think it’s also safe to say that most Liberals probably do support Israel, though. Obviously they would be less inclined to send troops to support one side or the other; were they in power, I think the most we would expect was a statement in support of Israel and some expressions of regret about the conflict.Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberals call for negotiation, and would be far more inclined to send representatives in an endeavor to establish a ceasefire.
The NDP are currently experiencing some uncertainty and in-fighting on this topic. Thomas Mulcair himself has spoken strongly in support of Israel; in 2008 he said, “je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël” (“I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances”), but that view has been amended in some ways since he took leadership of the NDP. He personally has supported some of Harper’s views on the conflict, before he was leader of the party, due to this support of the state of Israel.
At the very least, the NDP explicitly calls for ceasefire negotiations and will at least acknowledge Israeli aggressions, even if he does list all Palestinian aggressions before getting to those committed to them. Some NDP MPs have obviously and openly disagreed with Mulcair’s views; NDP MP for Vancouver’s Hastings-Sunrise riding Libby Davies was condemned some years ago for her counter-Israel comments, and Svend Robinson, before he left politics, was overtly pro-Palestine (I’ve lived in Vancouver too long; there are likely others in other areas of the country).
I’m still unclear as to how much Mulcair’s views are the party’s official views, or whether they even constitute the views of the majority of NDP MPs. The NDP probably wants to continue being the catch-all party and not state an overt view in case it alienates any aspect of its support base, but Mulcair’s voice is loud and it’s hard to hear the chorus of all-inclusion over the sound of his views.
ETA: here is an official publication describing the NDP’s policies in this matter, which includes overt support for Palestinian statehood, among other things. It is however from 2011, before Mulcair took leadership of the party.
And, as we saw earlier today, Elizabeth May and the Green Party are condemning illegal Israeli expansion (the article has placed “illegal” in quotation marks to cover its ass but I think it’s safe to assume it actually is illegal). A criticism of one does not imply an endorsement of another, and their ambiguity is intentional: officially, the party calls for a bi-lateral ceasefire, advocates a Palestinian right to statehood, and likewise acknowledges an “intractable right” for the state of Israel to exist. This view isn’t uncertain; it’s clear in the sense that it supports everyone’s right to have the land they’re mutually advocating for. The Green Party seems to be advocating for an international conference of support intended to negotiate a peace agreement where both sides’ demands are addressed.
Hope this helps. -L#replies #Anonymous #one mod wrote this without consultation from the others so any biases are mine and not necessarily the blog's #israel-palestine conflict #canadian politics