Canadians do not share their PM stance, yet still divide (polls)

polaris wrote:

really - i am starting to develop a real hate for harper ...

how classless do you have to be to blame the UN observers for being there - when they were trying to do their job ... the canadian's wife who was there said he was proud of the job he did and he would never leave ... and our unfailing support of israel while shedding little sympathy for the plight of the lebanese shows how little he cares for suffering ... he should be pushing a stoppage to this war not promoting it ...

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Yes the poll has not taken into account the extent of what Israel should do. I have a feeling if it included the constant air bombings and that such we would see support fall below 50%....well I would hope so....also I have pasted an editorial from cbc.ca describing the Conservatives and their ideology with Israel...not bad considering the guy who wrote it is a Liberal but he does not bash Harper in the traditional way...just take a second to read it...



The standard charge against Stephen Harper's foreign policy is that it's a clone of the policies of U.S. President George Bush.

Harper, his critics say, has gutted the image of Canada as a neutral middle power and peacemaker, a nation with a pragmatic foreign policy. He has, they say, a foreign policy that is brand new for Canada: a one-sided defence of Israel.

These critics all focus on the so-called "golden age of diplomacy" as practiced by the Liberals under Lester Pearson: a tradition of studied neutrality in the Middle East that has been embraced in Canadian foreign policy under the Liberals ever since.

It's this foreign policy that Harper has scuttled. Harper is pro-Israel and has kept a close lid on the Foreign Affairs Department, lest it stray too far from his line on the Mideast.

The historically challenged small 'l' liberal media sees Harper as an unbalanced supporter of Israel and sees Israel as the aggressor in the present crisis in Lebanon.

The real model for Harper's stance

But a closer look at history shows that Harper's stance on the Middle East is not aping Bush and the Americans. A careful look shows that the real model for Harper's present foreign policy and stand on Israel is John Diefenbaker.

In 1956, Britain, France and Israel went to war with Egypt after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Pearson and Louis St. Laurent condemned the European powers and Israel.

In 1957, the Diefenbaker Tories upset the Pearson Liberals in an election that directly challenged the traditional Liberal Pearson view of foreign policy and the Middle East.

Diefenbaker sharply attacked the St. Laurent-Pearson Liberals for their Suez policy. He dumped the idea of a moderate, neutral and pragmatic Canada in favour of taking a stand with the defence of Britain, France and Israel. And he won the election.

As prime minister, he created a pro-Israel, anti-Pearson and anti-External Affairs policy.

He was convinced that External Affairs (as Foreign Affairs was called at the time) was against both Israel and his government's foreign policy and he viewed the department with suspicion.

Mulroney echoed Diefenbaker's views

From the mid-1980s to the early '90s, another Tory prime minister, Brian Mulroney, echoed Diefenbaker in his distrust of Foreign Affairs and in his pro-Israel stance.

That's the tradition Harper is following.

His hands-on policy — and his one-man rule on foreign affairs and anything the Foreign Affairs Department does — is reminiscent of Dief's distrust of the department and bitter dislike of Pearson. Diefenbaker was convinced that External Affairs was anti-Israel and against the foreign policy of his government.

Harper, like Diefenbaker, also distrusts the media's stance on Israel.

Diefenbaker, a lifelong supporter of Israel, did not like the position the Kennedys and the American liberal media took on Israel and the Mideast. Harper is a disciple of William Buckley Jr., whose contempt of American liberals' and the media's stand on Israel is well known.

The liberal media argument that Harper is too pro-Israel and too pro-Bush is simplistic. And its criticism of Harper as a blundering, wrongheaded, rookie simpleton in the Middle East does not square with history.

Harper is not George Bush's toadie. His policy on Israel and the Mideast is part of a long Tory tradition.

thankyougrandma wrote:

No offense taken although the english speaking canada thing is not of really good taste, no problem i get the wink guy, just that nobody would ever support that, (see FLQ). Quebec are peacefull nature, so yes historicly we're always against war, when the new USA invade Montreal, Montrealers just let them do it, no opposition, just let us live, just let humans live.

But just want to add one thing, in both WW, Quebecers were standing strong against the draft, not the military intervention. The opposition to the Boer war is also great in my opinion and was only heard in Quebec (from what i know).

Allons résistons mes frères
A la connerie des militaires
En chantant "une colombe"
Loin du sifflement des bombes
Et au nord de l'Amérique
Devant not' village d'Astérix
Ca sera marqué en français :
"Icitte, sacrez nous donc la paix"
La Sainte Paix !

thankyougrandma wrote:

I think he follow a hardline neo-con agenda, which makes him sound like an american on almost every account, but i doubt that he makes his policies just because of George Bush, he's just a neo-con like George Bush... Anyway who knows really.

reborncareerist wrote:

The fact of the matter is that Harper's personal views on Israel have next to no impact on how this country is governed, yet people glom onto them as some sort of horrible travesty.

polaris wrote:

that is not true ... we have had plenty of discussions and i always said i would wait and see ... when debating the merits of the party - i always went with what was given to us by the party ...

well, i've waited and i see what he is all about ...

as for harper and bush - just cuz that article said that its a long tory tradition to support israel then we can't compare the two??

look at the softwood lumber deal, look at the environment, look at his stance on the media, the middle east, our contributions to this "war on terror" ... they are running identical platforms ...

thankyougrandma wrote:

But he's the PM, the one that give the official voice to the country, he does have responsabilities when he speak, what he did and said when he was not PM can't really be hold against him cause it was still a personal opinion, when he talk as the Prime Minister it's not a personal opinion anymore. It doesn't change how this country is govern, it change this country foreign policies...