The proposed amendments are not insignificant. Infact, I’d say they risk undoing the good that’s in the motion that passed. It is incorrect to say that Israel has a right to defend itself. It does not have this right on occupied territory. An occupier has no right to self defence. The occupied, however, does have a right to armed resistance: this is international law. No one has the right to commit war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity. These should be prosecuted on both sides by the ICC and ICJ, and Canadian MPs should not act as judge, jury and executioner.
People need to pay attention to the proposed amendments so that the victory of the original motion is not undone.
The amendment adds « and maintain Canada’s position that Israel has a right to exist in peace and security with its neighbours”. »
The problem is and always has been that Canada (and the west) has never supported Palestinian right to exist in peace with its neighbour. At minimum try to hide your obvious bias by saying « Israel and Palestinians have the right to peace and security with each other ».
It also asks for Hamas to put down their arms. You can’t say this under international law. The occupied have a right to defend themselves. This is a breach of international law. Why not specify Israel to put down their arms? Why is it even necessary to add anything to this sentence that calls for a cease fire? It seems like they are trying to hide language in there so they can support Israel’s position that there will be no ease fire until Hamas surrenders. And that is ridiculous. Israel will win at the negotiating table what it has not won on the battlefield. If this change is agreed to it is effectively saying Israel can continue with no ceasefire indefinitely: because Hamas will never surrender. Nor should they. They are a legitimate resistance army with the right to armed resistance. They, as any people including Israelis, should be on trial for war crimes at the ICC. Let a judge decide who is guilty of what with due process.
Canada and the west need to stop acting like judge, jury and executioner. It’s not our job or our business. Just focus on being human and stop trying to slink in these edits which nullify the intent if the original motion.
Nate, once again you betray the mask you wear. You vote for the motion and try to influence people here on accepting the amendments….they are not minor amendments. And if you truly were in agreement with the NDP motion you would be outraged at the proposed amendments.
Once again, you show yourself to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Most Canadians probably do support a ceasefire. But it must be under the proper conditions. If you expect the Hamas to release the hostages first, I would agree. If you see it as an incentive to get the hostages released, I think it would be ineffective. Israel tried that. Remember? And as for the Hamas laying down their arms in a ceasefire it seems impossible. Charlie Brown/Lucy/Football. While most Canadians may see this differently, we count on our MPs to provide leadership. The Liberals have managed to stay in power by siding with the NDP. But they have not given us leadership.
I agree with your title: The Conservatives don't want a ceasefire. But lets be honest. The Liberal leadership too had to be dragged to the motion while kicking and screaming, most reluctant to upset the order and most out of touch with their MPs and the rest of the Canadians. And no, a recognition of a State of Palestine while Hamas controls Gaza (and likely continues to be their people's choice) is not anymore impossible to accept than the precedent recognition of Israel while it has been governed by a far-right cabinet openly calling for destruction of all of Gaza and for new settlements to be built in Gaza - and an army happily carrying out such destruction. This would be hypocrisy by the democratic world.
The conservatives want a ceasefire agreed to by Hamas as well and with the return of all the hostages taken by Hamas. It is remarkable that the name Hamas is never spoken when a ceasefire is talked about, as if they have no role in this situation at all. What is being done to these hostages? Do you care? Would you care of it was your family member?
Hamas took videos of the atrocities they did to Israelis on Oct 7. Ask journalist Matt Gurney. He saw the videos and wrote about it with heavy heart and horror. Where did you get all these facts about what has happened in Gaza because Hamas will not let anyone in to see the truth?. All we get is information from the Hamas Health ministry that is controlled by Hamas. Who is really stopping the aid? I heard Hamas is in many cases. I do not want to see anyone killed. Why is no one calling for Hamas to release the hostages? Should Israel just lay down their guns without getting the hostages back and then wait until Hamas slaughters more Israelis?
Thanks for the detailed explanation of what was in the motion - that's very helpful.
I'm always wary of foreign policy being treated as a partisan issue. Louis St. Laurent emphasized the need for national unity in the 1947 Gray Lecture:
"The first general principle upon which I think we are agreed is that our external policies shall not destroy our unity. No policy can be regarded as wise which divides the people whose effort and resources must put it into effect. This consideration applies not only to the two main cultural groups in our country. It applies equally to sectionalism of any kind. We dare not fashion a policy which is based on the particular interests of any economic group, of any class or of any section in this country. We must be on guard especially against the claims of extravagant regionalism no matter where they have their origin. Our history has shown this to be a consideration in our external policy of which we, more even than others, must be perpetually conscious. The role of this country in world affairs will prosper only as we maintain this principle, for a disunited Canada will be a powerless one."
Canadian foreign policy should be based on a broad consensus.
Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Canada has a strong interest in international peace and stability. Canada has no interest in seeing Israel destroyed, especially by an enemy like Hamas which is willing to commit terrible atrocities against civilians; hence Canada's official position that Israel has the right to exist, and therefore the right to use force when attacked. (The right to exist, without the right to use force, is completely meaningless.)
At the same time, the suffering of the Palestinians is also a key grievance of the Arab and Muslim world, undermining the stability of the international status quo every time whenever Palestinian children are killed. Therefore Canada *also* has a strong interest in seeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved, based on the two-state solution (with the pre-1967 borders as the baseline) - or, at the very least, in seeing that Israel is not the obstacle to the resolution of the conflict.
I would hope that all three parties, and most Canadians, would be able to agree on the following consensus:
1. Canada supports Israel's right to exist, as agreed by the UN under Resolution 181, and its right to use force when attacked, in accordance with the laws of war.
2. Canada supports the humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinians.
3. Canada, Israel, and the Palestinians share a strong interest in a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the pre-1967 borders (as in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative), allowing both Israel and the Palestinians to live side by side in peace. Canada will support those who are willing to accept compromise, and oppose those who are not.
The proposed amendments are not insignificant. Infact, I’d say they risk undoing the good that’s in the motion that passed. It is incorrect to say that Israel has a right to defend itself. It does not have this right on occupied territory. An occupier has no right to self defence. The occupied, however, does have a right to armed resistance: this is international law. No one has the right to commit war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity. These should be prosecuted on both sides by the ICC and ICJ, and Canadian MPs should not act as judge, jury and executioner.
People need to pay attention to the proposed amendments so that the victory of the original motion is not undone.
The amendment adds « and maintain Canada’s position that Israel has a right to exist in peace and security with its neighbours”. »
The problem is and always has been that Canada (and the west) has never supported Palestinian right to exist in peace with its neighbour. At minimum try to hide your obvious bias by saying « Israel and Palestinians have the right to peace and security with each other ».
It also asks for Hamas to put down their arms. You can’t say this under international law. The occupied have a right to defend themselves. This is a breach of international law. Why not specify Israel to put down their arms? Why is it even necessary to add anything to this sentence that calls for a cease fire? It seems like they are trying to hide language in there so they can support Israel’s position that there will be no ease fire until Hamas surrenders. And that is ridiculous. Israel will win at the negotiating table what it has not won on the battlefield. If this change is agreed to it is effectively saying Israel can continue with no ceasefire indefinitely: because Hamas will never surrender. Nor should they. They are a legitimate resistance army with the right to armed resistance. They, as any people including Israelis, should be on trial for war crimes at the ICC. Let a judge decide who is guilty of what with due process.
Canada and the west need to stop acting like judge, jury and executioner. It’s not our job or our business. Just focus on being human and stop trying to slink in these edits which nullify the intent if the original motion.
Nate, once again you betray the mask you wear. You vote for the motion and try to influence people here on accepting the amendments….they are not minor amendments. And if you truly were in agreement with the NDP motion you would be outraged at the proposed amendments.
Once again, you show yourself to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
You’re not fooling us.
Most Canadians probably do support a ceasefire. But it must be under the proper conditions. If you expect the Hamas to release the hostages first, I would agree. If you see it as an incentive to get the hostages released, I think it would be ineffective. Israel tried that. Remember? And as for the Hamas laying down their arms in a ceasefire it seems impossible. Charlie Brown/Lucy/Football. While most Canadians may see this differently, we count on our MPs to provide leadership. The Liberals have managed to stay in power by siding with the NDP. But they have not given us leadership.
I agree with your title: The Conservatives don't want a ceasefire. But lets be honest. The Liberal leadership too had to be dragged to the motion while kicking and screaming, most reluctant to upset the order and most out of touch with their MPs and the rest of the Canadians. And no, a recognition of a State of Palestine while Hamas controls Gaza (and likely continues to be their people's choice) is not anymore impossible to accept than the precedent recognition of Israel while it has been governed by a far-right cabinet openly calling for destruction of all of Gaza and for new settlements to be built in Gaza - and an army happily carrying out such destruction. This would be hypocrisy by the democratic world.
The conservatives want a ceasefire agreed to by Hamas as well and with the return of all the hostages taken by Hamas. It is remarkable that the name Hamas is never spoken when a ceasefire is talked about, as if they have no role in this situation at all. What is being done to these hostages? Do you care? Would you care of it was your family member?
Hamas took videos of the atrocities they did to Israelis on Oct 7. Ask journalist Matt Gurney. He saw the videos and wrote about it with heavy heart and horror. Where did you get all these facts about what has happened in Gaza because Hamas will not let anyone in to see the truth?. All we get is information from the Hamas Health ministry that is controlled by Hamas. Who is really stopping the aid? I heard Hamas is in many cases. I do not want to see anyone killed. Why is no one calling for Hamas to release the hostages? Should Israel just lay down their guns without getting the hostages back and then wait until Hamas slaughters more Israelis?
Thanks for the detailed explanation of what was in the motion - that's very helpful.
I'm always wary of foreign policy being treated as a partisan issue. Louis St. Laurent emphasized the need for national unity in the 1947 Gray Lecture:
"The first general principle upon which I think we are agreed is that our external policies shall not destroy our unity. No policy can be regarded as wise which divides the people whose effort and resources must put it into effect. This consideration applies not only to the two main cultural groups in our country. It applies equally to sectionalism of any kind. We dare not fashion a policy which is based on the particular interests of any economic group, of any class or of any section in this country. We must be on guard especially against the claims of extravagant regionalism no matter where they have their origin. Our history has shown this to be a consideration in our external policy of which we, more even than others, must be perpetually conscious. The role of this country in world affairs will prosper only as we maintain this principle, for a disunited Canada will be a powerless one."
Canadian foreign policy should be based on a broad consensus.
Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Canada has a strong interest in international peace and stability. Canada has no interest in seeing Israel destroyed, especially by an enemy like Hamas which is willing to commit terrible atrocities against civilians; hence Canada's official position that Israel has the right to exist, and therefore the right to use force when attacked. (The right to exist, without the right to use force, is completely meaningless.)
At the same time, the suffering of the Palestinians is also a key grievance of the Arab and Muslim world, undermining the stability of the international status quo every time whenever Palestinian children are killed. Therefore Canada *also* has a strong interest in seeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved, based on the two-state solution (with the pre-1967 borders as the baseline) - or, at the very least, in seeing that Israel is not the obstacle to the resolution of the conflict.
I would hope that all three parties, and most Canadians, would be able to agree on the following consensus:
1. Canada supports Israel's right to exist, as agreed by the UN under Resolution 181, and its right to use force when attacked, in accordance with the laws of war.
2. Canada supports the humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinians.
3. Canada, Israel, and the Palestinians share a strong interest in a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the pre-1967 borders (as in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative), allowing both Israel and the Palestinians to live side by side in peace. Canada will support those who are willing to accept compromise, and oppose those who are not.