Tag Archives: Middle East

#Censorship + #Harper + #Israel vs #Palestine – (#GolanHeights + #Syria) = #cdnpoli #Error404

Chronology of Events leading up to Stephen Harper and the Harper Regime’s hurried trip to Israel

The premise of this investigative chronological summary timeline is based upon the questions and evidence raised after reviewing and following up on an couple of articles recently published, Conservative party launches website to promote Stephen Harper’s first official Middle East trip by Jason Fekete, Published January 14, 2014 and Foreign Affairs website at odds with PMs comments in support of Israel, group says By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News January 15, 2014, regarding the current Harper Government’s Foreign Policy vs. the previous Canadian Government’s Foreign Policy as it relates to Israels economy, the Occupied Territories and Golan Heights.

The timing of a couple of hastily, oddly removed and edited, censored information, that were previously accessible and available via the official tax-payer funded Government of Canada’s websites that are currently being redirected to 404 “Page Not Found” error pages. Along with the PMO based Senate Scandal and past Harper Party electoral shenanigans, the timeline of this censorship is suspicious at best. Once combined with couple of new dedicated websites launched by the Harper Party that utilize taxpayer-funded government assets to promote support for Israel while propagandizing it’s foreign policies domestically and abroad, it gets worse considering how the Harper Government treats Canada’s Veterans.

This certainly appears to be a coup d’etat of sorts by Big Oil driven Fracking special interest groups in an apparent effort to capitalize on the chaotic and deadly situation in Syria, that was encouraged and instigated by the Harper Regime, in-order to subversively exploit the occupied Golan Heights while leveraging, manipulating and diverting Asian, Middle Eastern, African political support and financial assets between various taxpayer-funded government missions and groups domestically and abroad.

Questions to Ponder

  • Who is currently dictating and scripting Canada’s Foreign Policy and who is benefiting from this speculative Economic Diplomacy?
  • What are the costs and motivators behind the timeline and sequence of events?
  • When was the recently updated propaganda narrative mandated?
  • Where is the investment funding coming from and where will the profits go?
  • Why is there so much secrecy in the present and censorship of the past?
  • How does this “timing” affect Canada and Canadian interests in the future?

Please review the following trilogy of topics and chronological sequence of articles, archives, caches and snapshots of retrieved pages, paying close attention to the removed text, links and information from the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada websites:

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East: Canada’s Explanation of Vote: The Syrian Golan


August 2011

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Date Modified: 03Jun2011
Date Cached: 11Aug2011
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” is included.

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Cached 11Aug2011
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/canadian_policy-politique_canadienne.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

March 2012

Syria’s Assad ‘must go,’ Baird warns

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird condemned the continued violence and aid impasse in Syria as heavy shelling continued in Homs over the weekend, saying that Canada is considering new measures to make clear that Syrian president Bashar Assad “must go.”

By Edmonton Journal March 5, 2012
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=d4095b41-bb18-4232-902b-37b79fe87982&sponsor=dumpharper


July 2012

Two Sides of the Same Flag: How Israel’s Natural Gas Will Change the World

By Marin Katusa, 17 Jul 2012
https://www.caseyresearch.com/print/two-sides-same-flag-how-israels-natural-gas-will-change-world


August 2012

The Russian gas giant that haunts Europe – and Israel

Visiting Russian leader Valdimir Putin last month reportedly proposed bilateral energy cooperation, but a Haifa University expert warns that partnerships with the state-owned company are not of equals.

By Avi Bar-Eli | Aug. 1, 2012 | 5:20 AM
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gJhuYxdJ1L0J:http://www.haaretz.com/business/the-russian-gas-giant-that-haunts-europe-and-israel-1.455117


September 2012

Israel and Russia join forces over gas

Lawrence Solomon | September 7, 2012 9:00 PM ET
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n4RDS1OJsccJ:http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/09/07/lawrence-solomon-israel-and-russia-join-forces-over-gas/


Syria rebels get tactical help from Toronto IT specialist Behind the scenes, armchair military strategists from U.S., Canada crowdsource a war

CBC News Posted: Sep 26, 2012 9:46 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 26, 2012 9:43 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-rebels-get-tactical-help-from-toronto-it-specialist-1.1149361


Crowdsourcing a War

The National | Sep 26, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2284250890/


October 2012

Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East

UN Votes and Statements

Please note that “59th Session: 2004” currently redirects to a 404 “Page Not found” error message.
Date Modified: 01Mar2012
Date Cached: 20Oct2012
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014

http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/index.aspx?lang=eng&view=d
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/index.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

Canada’s Explanation of Vote

The Syrian Golan

Date Modified: 17Jun2009
Date Cached: 20Oct2012
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Please note that “UN Votes and Statements General Assembly 59th Session: 2004” currently redirects to a 404 “Page Not found” error message.

Canada's Explanation of Vote The Syrian Golan: Cached 20Oct2012
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/session_59_2004/explanation-explication_59_33.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

February 2013

Israel approves drilling in contested Golan Heights ahead of Obama visit Provided by The Canadian Press

By Canadian Press | Feb 21, 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6FNJOoyLhIAJ:http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/21/israel-approves-drilling-in-contested-golan-heights-ahead-of-obama-visit/


Israel grants Golan exploration licence

By John Reed in Jerusalem, February 21, 2013 2:27 pm
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CBc1yudcUDIJ:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/471a183a-7c28-11e2-bf52-00144feabdc0.html


Israeli Licence to Cheney-Linked Energy Firm on Golan Heights Raises Eyebrows

By Jim Lobe | WASHINGTON, Feb 23 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Vmn-z7nbwlsJ:http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/israeli-licence-to-cheney-linke-energy-firm-on-golan-heights-raises-eyebrows/


April 2013

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process

Date Modified: 26Oct2012
Date Cached: 26Apr2013
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” is included.

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process: Cached 26Apr2013
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/index.aspx?lang=eng

Israel in gas talks with Russia

Russian companies are examining options of participating in the development of Israeli gas, the Prime Minister’s Office says.

29 October 13 14:48, Amiram Barkat
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nf8ts1GiJDEJ:http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000889580


May 2013

Canada and Israel — best friends forever?

Why is Ottawa so extraordinarily supportive of the Jewish state? Has the Harper administration gone too far, and cost itself influence in the Arab world? And would a change of government see an altered stance?

By Raphael Ahren May 19, 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:S11NKe9XBAwJ:http://www.timesofisrael.com/canada-and-israel-best-friends-forever/


September 2013

Shale: A key to Israel’s future

by Neil Goldstein, Guest Columnist Sep 09, 2013
http://thejewishchronicle.net/view/full_story/23570187/article-Shale–A-key-to-Israel-s-future?instance=secondary_stories_right_column


October 2013

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process

Date Modified: 29Apr2013
Date Cached: 05Oct2013
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” has been removed.

Canada and the Middle East Peace Process: Cached 05Oct2013
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/index.aspx?lang=eng

November 2013

Stephen Harper planning first visit to Israel, will announce details at Jewish National Fund dinner

John Ivison | November 29, 2013 | Last Updated: Nov 29 6:40 PM ET
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:97Lhd0mynMwJ:http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/29/stephen-harper-planning-first-visit-to-israel-will-announce-details-at-jewish-national-fund-dinner/


Stephen Harper to be feted for support of Israel at Negev dinner

Bird sanctuary in Israel to be named after Harper

The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 30, 2013 9:09 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 01, 2013 5:55 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.2446730


December 2013

Stephen Harper breaks into song after Israel trip announcement

The PM belted out his own rendition of the Who’s “The Seeker” and a string of other classic songs.

The Canadian Press Published on Sun Dec 01 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b1n42kxHyacJ:http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/01/stephen_harper_breaks_into_song_after_israel_trip_announcement.html


Israel Wants Harper’s Advice On Natural Gas: Ambassador

CP | By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press Posted: 12/03/2013 5:03 pm EST | Updated: 12/04/2013 11:23 am EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/03/harper-israel-rafi-barak-natural-gas_n_4380127.html?view=print


Israel’s best friend: Stephen Harper

The Prime Minister’s support seems less strategic than a reflection of his deeply held personal beliefs

by Nick Taylor-Vaisey on Wednesday, December 4, 2013 3:05pm
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IUkP5y_nqc8J:http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/12/04/israels-best-friend-stephen-harper/


Will Egypt Purchase Gas from Israel via Cyprus?

Karen Ayat, December 05th, 2013 12:15am
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hz2AJRD6mUsJ:http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/will-egypt-purchase-gas-from-israel-via-cyprus-14407


Israel seeks to tap Canada’s expertise in natural gas: new ambassador

David Lazarus, Staff Reporter, Monday, December 23, 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Anw74gRhUQMJ:http://cjnews.com/privacy-policy?q=node/119772


Putin’s Mediterranean Move

The race is on to exploit off-shore energy around Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus — and Moscow is crashing the party.

BY Keith Johnson, DECEMBER 27, 2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9q1uBbLU33UJ:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/27/putin_s_mediterranean_move


Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant

29.12.2013
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RK6t-hMdUuQJ:http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-12-2013/126507-israel_gas-0/


January 2014

24 Seven

Jan 2-8, 2014
Transcript: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/video/34741/transcript

Video: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/videos-ctg/34741


Overhaul of Israel’s Economy Offers Lessons for United States

By STEVEN DAVIDOFF, January 7, 2014, 4:54 pm
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/overhaul-of-israels-economy-offers-lessons-for-united-states/


Canada names a partisan voice as new ambassador to Israel

By David Akin, Parliamentary Bureau Chief First posted: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 02:43 PM EST | Updated: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 04:20 PM EST
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YPYVmeo3dtYJ:http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/08/canada-names-a-partisan-voice-as-new-ambassador-to-israel


Baird defends appointment of new pro-Israeli ambassador ahead of Harper trip

by Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:13pm
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lo4qIHMtbwwJ:http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/01/08/baird-defends-appointment-of-new-pro-israeli-ambassador-ahead-of-harper-trip/


Toronto lawyer Vivian Bercovici is Canada’s next ambassador to Israel as Harper government ‘affirms unfailing support’ for Jewish state

Stewart Bell | January 8, 2014 | Last Updated: Jan 8 5:51 PM ET
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NcQRblQW4iYJ:http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/08/toronto-lawyer-vivian-bercovici-to-serve-as-canadas-next-ambassador-to-israel-in-latest-sign-of-ottawas-approach-to-middle-east/


Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Date Modified: 26Oct2012
Google Cached: 09Jan2014
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” has not been removed.

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Cached 09Jan2014
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_n8LTF1AYFkJ:http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/canadian_policy-politique_canadienne.aspx%3Flang%3Deng

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Date Modified: 13Jan2014
Date Retrieved: 15Jan2014
Note that the text and link to the “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East” has been removed.

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Retrieved 15Jan2014
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/canadian_policy-politique_canadienne.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

PM Harper embarks on first trip to the Middle East

January 13,2014
http://www.stephenharper.ca/pm-harper-embarks-on-first-trip-to-the-middle-east/


Conservative party launches website to promote Stephen Harper’s first official Middle East trip

Jason Kenney will join Harper on trip that includes Israel, West Bank and Jordan

By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News January 14, 2014
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=9386948&sponsor=dumpharper


Foreign Affairs website at odds with PM’s comments in support of Israel, group says

By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News January 15, 2014
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=9387318&sponsor=dumpharper


Harper’s Israel Trip Comes Amid Changes Back Home

Althia Raj, Posted: 01/15/2014 11:08 am EST | Updated: 01/15/2014 1:55 pm EST
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zpP9PP8KJ8UJ:http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/15/stephen-harper-israel-jewish-support_n_4598535.html


Stephen Harper’s deceased father a key influence in PM’s support for Israel

PM has called his father the ‘greatest influence’ on his life

Mark Kennedy, Published: January 15, 2014, 4:10 pm
www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=9392305&sponsor=dumpharper


Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East

Date Modified: 26Jun2013
Date Cached: 03Jul2013
Date Retrieved 15Jan2014
Note that the page “Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East last modified 26Oct2013” now redirects to a 404 “Page Not Found” error message.

Explanations of vote on United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East: Retrieved 15Jan2014
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/index.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

Canada’s Explanation of Vote The Syrian Golan

Date Modified: 26Jun2013
Date Retrieved 15Jan2014
Note that the page “Canada’s Explanation of Vote The Syrian Golan last modified 26Oct2013” now redirects to a 404 “Page Not Found” error message.

Canada's Explanation of Vote The Syrian Golan: Retrieved 15Jan2014
http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/un-onu/session_59_2004/explanation-explication_59_33.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

Russia Finds Path Into Mediterranean Gas Through Syria

Christopher Coats, Energy Contributor | 1/16/2014 @ 11:47AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christophercoats/2014/01/16/russia-finds-path-into-mediterranean-gas-through-syria/


Syrian energy deal puts Russia in gas-rich Med

Jan. 16, 2014 at 3:56 PM
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2014/01/16/Syrian-energy-deal-puts-Russia-in-gas-rich-Med/UPI-32731389905770/


Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Is One of Israel’s Strongest Backers — But Why?

Conservative Leader Visits Jewish State for First Time

By Ron Csillag Published January 16, 2014
http://forward.com/articles/191070/canadian-prime-minister-stephen-harper-is-one-of-i/


Another Canadian jihadi reported dead in Syria

By Michael Woods, OTTAWA CITIZEN January 16, 2014
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=9397373&sponsor=dumpharper



Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#cbclolx interviews Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal re: #cdnpoli #petrodollar #oil #energy #economy #trade

CBC’s Amanda Lang interviews Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Kingdom Holdings CEO on his investment style and reform in Saudi Arabia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKeAcqHaWNc

Kingdom Holding Company Press & Media / Investor News / Press Release:
Saudi Prince Alwaleed Interviewed by Prominent US & Canadian Media

November 19, 2013

HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, Chairman of Kingdom Holding Company (KHC) was on a trip to the United States of America and Canada. During his visit to New York and Toronto Prince Alwaleed granted interviews to prominent US and Canadian media entities to discuss various topics such as his investments, the current status of the global economy and the Middle East.

Furthermore, the meetings were attended by a delegation from Kingdom Holding Company and Private Office that included Mr. Shadi Sanbar, KHC’s Executive Director and CFO and Member of the Investment Committee, Ms. Heba Fatani, Senior Executive Manager, Corporate Communications Department, Dr. Nahla Nasser Alanbar, Private Executive Assistant to HRH the Chairman, Mr. Naief Hussam Alzuhair, Manager, Website and Social Media and Mr. Fahad Bin Saad Bin Nafel, Executive Assistant to HRH the Chairman.

His Highness had interviews with:

1) CBC with Ms. Amanda Lang

2) Globe and Mail with Ms. Jacquie McNish

3) CNBC with Ms. Maria Bartiromo “Closing Bell”

4) PBS’s Charlie Rose with Mr. Charlie Rose

5) The Wall Street Journal

6) CNN with Piers Morgan

7) MSNBC with Morning Joe

8) CBS This Morning Charlie Rose, Gayle King

In addition, Prince Alwaleed visited various media offices and met with their editorial management. Moreover, Prince Alwaleed held business meetings with financial and economic representatives during his visit.

http://www.kingdom.com.sa/prince-alwaleed-interviewed-by-prominent-us-canadian-media


  1. Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal Kingdom Holdings CEO on his investment style and reform in Saudi Arabia BUSINESS Nov 19, 2013
    http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Business/Lang+%26+O%27Leary+Exchange/ID/2419466030/
  2. Saudi billionaire sees a world awash in oil JACQUIE McNISH TORONTO — The Globe and Mail (includes correction) Published Friday, Nov. 15 2013, 7:29 PM EST Last updated Monday, Nov. 18 2013, 6:34 AM EST
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/african-and-mideast-business/saudi-billionaire-sees-a-world-awash-in-oil/article15472661/
  3. Prince Alwaleed knocks activist investors Published: Monday, 18 Nov 2013 5:29 PM ET By: Drew Sandholm Producer
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101198665
  4. Nov. 20: Charlie Rose talks to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the largest individual foreign investor in the United States who has been called the Arabian Warren Buffett.
    http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2013-11-20/prince-alwaleed-bin-talal-charlie-rose-11-20
  5. Saudi Prince Alwaleed’s Kingdom Holding Signals Twitter Interest
    http://online.wsj.com/article/DN-CO-20131029-005803.html
  6. Prince Alwaleed on investing $300 million in Twitter, and heeding Warren Buffett’s spending advice November 18th, 2013 09:49 PM ET
    http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/18/prince-alwaleed-on-investing-300-million-in-twitter-and-heeding-warren-buffetts-spending-advice/
  7. Saudi billionaire on oil, Iran and women drivers MORNING JOE 11/18/13 In a recent address, President Obama praised U.S. oil production as a “tremendous step towards American energy independence.” Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal joins Morning Joe to discuss Saudi oil production and world oil production and investing in Twitter and Syria.Saudi billionaire on oil, Iran and women drivers
    http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/saudi-billionaire-on-oil-iran-and-women-drivers-64594499613
  8. SAUDI PRINCE ALWALEED BIN TALAL ADDRESSES ENERGY, U.S.-SAUDI RELATIONS, SYRIA AND IRAN — ON “CBS THIS MORNING” PRINCE ALWALEED BIN TALAL TELLS CO-HOSTS CHARLIE ROSE, NORAH O’DONNELL AND GAYLE KING OF THE UNITED STATES’ REPUTATION ABROAD: “ITS INFLUENCE IS DIMINISHING”
    http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/releases/view?id=37339

Published on Nov 22, 2013
Operation Harper [https://www.youtube.com/user/opharper]

Download, Archive, Mirror, Share!

*DISCLAIMERS and NOTICES*
Fair Use Statement According to the “Fair Use” clause of International Copyright Law, the uploader declares that the use of the photos/images/information in this academic/reference/scholarly work is for purposes of “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research” according to Section 107. – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, U.S. Copyright Code.

The uploader does not claim authorship, or copyright claim to this video or it’s contents. This work is intended for educational and historical purposes only.

“Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not always have been specifically Authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is available without profit to those who have expressed an interest in the included information for research and educational purposes.

Category: Education
License: Standard YouTube License

continue viewing source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKeAcqHaWNc


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Claims that landlocked oil costing Canada billions in revenue are ‘bogus’, economists say

Claims that landlocked oil costing Canada billions in revenue are ‘bogus’, economists say

William Marsden, Postmedia News | 13/06/03 | Last Updated: 13/06/03 8:29 AM ET

 

Is there any truth in the “double discount” on Canada's oil? Energy economists say that the situation is not nearly as cut and dry as the politicians pretend.

WASHINGTON – Politicians call it the “double discount” and it’s supposed to be costing Canada billions of dollars in lost oil revenues.

B.C. formally opposes Northern Gateway pipeline over lingering environmental concerns

In a final written submission to the federal review panel after more than a year of hearings, lawyers for the westernmost province said the proponent, Calgary-based Enbridge, has not shown that it will be able to effectively respond to oil spills. Read more.

Last December, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told a New Brunswick audience Canada was losing “$50 million every single day —$18 to $19 billion every year.”

A month later, Doug Horner, Alberta’s finance minister, raised the figure to about $100 million a day in a speech to a Calgary audience. “Right now, Alberta’s bitumen is fetching more than $40 per barrel less than oil in Mexico or Texas,” he told a Calgary audience.  “Some of our oil is fetching about $50 less than oil from the Middle East.”

Many Canadian politicians have invoked the argument that because western oil is landlocked it’s not fetching international prices and therefore is being sold at a discount. If Canada could build more pipelines such as Keystone XL or the proposed Northern Gateway through British Columbia, it would reach tidewater ports where it would attract world prices, the so-called Brent and West Texas Intermediate prices.

The second part of the discount comes from backlogs at U.S. pipeline terminals that can result in lower prices for some Canadian heavy crude oil.

But is there any truth in the “double discount”?

Energy economists say that the situation is not nearly as cut and dry as the politicians pretend. Some call the claim “bogus.” World prices are based primarily on quality and so Canada’s bitumen, which has the lowest quality of the heavy oils, naturally fetches lower prices. Sending the oil sands bitumen to Gulf Coast refineries is not going to change that fact, they note.

“It just doesn’t make any sense,” Michal Moore, an energy economist at University of Calgary, said of the discount argument. “Anything that does not meet that quality standard is going to trade at a discount relative to Brent.  All that discount means is that any refinery owner is going to pay less for something they have to spend more time and energy to upgrade. That’s all it means.”

Warren Mabee, director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental policy at Queens University, said the discount claim “is kind of bogus” If only because it is impossible to predict future prices.

“Unless you are delivering the highest quality crude, Brent Crude or West Texas Intermediate, out into that international market place, you are not going to be getting the highest price that is out there,” he said.

He said there is some discount attached to Canadian heavy oil when there are pipeline backups, but these tend to rectify over time.

Moore noted that Canada already tests international markets when it pipes thousands of barrels of bitumen daily to the Gulf Coast through existing pipelines. There is no indication this oil is attracting higher prices because it is reaching tidal waters, he said.

B.C. Energy economist Robyn Allan, who recently wrote a report on the pricing of Canadian oil, said “the discount has been used by the federal and provincial governments to shadow out the fact that by shipping raw bitumen to U.S. refineries, Canada is also shipping jobs.”

So where did Oliver and Horner get their figures from?

Christopher McCluskey, who is Oliver’s media aide, said the minister took his $50-million figure from a CIBC report of March 2012 that coined the phrase “double discount” and mentioned the $50-million-a-day figure.

It’s not clear from the report how the $50-million figure was calculated. But an analysis of crude oil prices shows that at close of Feb. 10, 2012, the price differential between West Texas Intermediate (WTI), a U.S. international bench mark, and Synthetic Crude Oil (SCO), which is a light crude upgraded from oil sands bitumen, was $23.04 a barrel. This substantial differential works out to about $50 million a day as a discount.  (A price comparison of WTI to SCO is significant because the quality is similar.)

In his report, CIBC analyst Andrew Potter cautioned that this price differential would not last because pipeline bottlenecks and refinery problems would ease and the overall vagaries of the oil market would change the pricing dynamics.

Indeed, within a week that differential was closing. By Feb. 15, 2012, the price differential was only one dollar, which means the $50-million discount claimed six months later by Oliver, was now only about $2.5 million. By August 2012, SCO was selling above WTI prices and continued to do so through to November when WTI vaulted back into the lead. But by the end of February 2013 SCO was once again surging ahead of WTI. So the discount that Horner claimed in January had reached more than $100 million a day (in fact the WTI-SCO differential on the day of his speech was only $1.74 a barrel, producing a discount of at best $4.4 million) had not only disappeared but was now a premium. Canada was selling its synthetic crude at more than $6 a barrel above the WTI world price. As of May 30, the differential was 32 cents.

After Postmedia questioned McCluskey about the use of the CIBC report, he replied on behalf of Oliver that the government is in fact using an average annual price differential between Brent and WTI prices that implies a $45-million-a-day discount on Canadian crude.

But Moore said this is not a logical comparison because Brent is a better quality sweet crude than WTI and therefore refineries are willing to pay more for it. He added that it is “just crackers” and “not realistic” to think that Brent-WTI pricing can be applied to lower quality Canadian heavy crude.

“The most desirable mix on the block is the Brent,” he said. “So anything that does not meet that quality standard is going to trade at a discount relative to Brent.  All that discount means is that any refinery owner is going to pay less for something they have to spend more time and energy to upgrade. That’s all it means.”

Moore also said it is unlikely that oil sands bitumen would find a market in refineries outside the United States. He said no producer would pay the extra shipping costs of sending the oil to, say, Europe if he is already getting the best price in Texas.

“I mean I have heard this insane argument that we would take a barrel of Western Canadian Select (a diluted bitumen from the oil sands), send it to Port Arthur, Texas, put it on a ship and sent it somewhere else like to Europe,” Moore said. “Why would you do that? That’s just nuts.”

continue reading source:  http://business.financialpost.com/2013/06/03/canada-oil-price-discount/


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Baird downplayed PM’s comments on threat of ‘Islamist terrorism’ during international trip: documents

Baird downplayed PM’s comments on threat of ‘Islamist terrorism’ during international trip: documents

By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News March 7, 2013
Baird downplayed PM’s comments on threat of ‘Islamist terrorism’ during international trip: documents

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in the Mideast in 2012.

Photograph by: Mohammad Hannon/The Associated Press , Postmedia News

OTTAWA — When Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned in September 2011 that “Islamist terrorism” is the greatest threat facing Canada, it generated headlines across the country.

It seems Canadians weren’t the only ones who took notice — newly released documents show the comments also stoked international anger.

In fact, the reaction was so strong that Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was forced to back-pedal during a meeting with one of the Muslim world’s most important leaders last year.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said the incident should serve as a warning to the Conservatives to be more careful with their words in the future.

“It’s about responsible diplomacy,” Dewar said. “Particularly when we’re trying to work with moderates in North Africa and the Middle East.”

“When you’re making these comments, you’re speaking to the whole world, including people you’re trying to work with,” he said. “I hope there’s more caution and carefulness taken when we’re talking about global threats and that we don’t just use language that frankly is irresponsible.”

Harper’s comments were made on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, in which he told the CBC the “major threat” to Canada is “Islamicism.”

“When people think of Islamic terrorism, they think of Afghanistan and maybe of some place in the Middle East,” Harper said. “But the truth is, that threat exists all over the world.”

The comments prompted immediate condemnation from analysts and Muslim groups in Canada, who accused the Harper Conservatives of bigotry and vilifying Islam and all those who practice the religion.

Those sentiments were apparently shared by Muslim countries as well.

In February 2012, Baird travelled to Tunisia to attend an international conference on Syria.

One of his meetings on the sidelines of that summit was with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation.

The OIC consists of 57 Muslim countries and purports to stand for the interests of and present a single voice for the Muslim world.

A note prepared for the meeting warned Baird that Ihsanoglu would likely raise the prime minister’s comments, which “were misconstrued in the region (the Middle East and North Africa).”

If the comments did come up, Baird was advised to downplay them.

“By Islamist extremists, we mean those who distort the name of a religion to advance their political objectives through violence,” Baird was to say.

“Canada does not equate Islamist extremism with Islam the religion,” Baird was to add.

“Canada also recognizes that Islamist extremism is not the only terrorist threat to Canada and that Canada is not the only country being targeted by would-be terrorists.”

Baird was to conclude by saying that Canada was working with communities in Canada and partners around the world, including some OIC countries, to prevent and counter terrorist threats.

It’s not the first time Canada’s relationship with the Muslim world has been strained: the Harper government’s support for Israel was seen as a prime reason Muslim countries refused to support Canada’s UN Security Council bid in 2010.

The Harper government also has been accused of ignoring mainstream Muslim communities, or excluding them from federal government activities such as consultation in the lead-up to establishing a new Office of Religious Freedoms.

Amin Elshorbagy, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said that has resulted in concern among Muslims in Canada, as well as changes in how Canada is viewed abroad.

 “I can tell you that people’s feelings in Muslim countries towards Canada have started to be cautious because Canada chooses now to take certain stands and positions on the international platform that are quite different from the traditional Canadian principles,” he said. “So of course that is noticed.”

It appears that while the Harper government continues to talk about the threat posed by terrorism, it no longer refers specifically to Islamic terrorism.

lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com

Twitter:/leeberthiaume

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

continue reading source: http://www.canada.com/news/Baird+downplayed+comments+threat+Islamist+terrorism+during+international+trip+documents/8065437/story.html


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Harper Government Opening New Markets in Middle East and North Africa

Posted by: africanpressorganization October 2012
 


Harper Government Opening New Markets in Middle East and North Africa

 

OTTAWA, Canada, October 7, 2012/African Press Organization (APO)/ Increasing Canadian exports leads to jobs, growth and prosperity at home, Minister Fast says on trade mission to Saudi Arabia and Jordan

October 7, 2012 – The Honourable Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, continues to advance the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history as he leads a trade mission to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Yesterday in Riyadh, Minister Fast and Tawfiq bin Fawzan Al-Rabiah, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Commerce and Industry, announced the relaunch of the Canada-Saudi Arabia Joint Economic Commission (JEC) to help expand and diversify trade between the two countries.

“Opening new markets and increasing Canadian exports around the world creates jobs and prosperity for Canadian workers and families,” said Minister Fast. “Reinvigorating the Joint Economic Commission will help us take our bilateral relationship to the next level and help Canadian businesses succeed in the Middle East and the North African market.”

Representatives of more than 20 Canadian businesses and organizations have joined Minister Fast on the trade mission to Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The trade mission is focused on the education, health care and infrastructure sectors, areas where Canadian expertise and know-how is significant.

More than 16,000 Saudi Arabians are now studying in Canada, making Saudi Arabia Canada’s fourth-largest source of international students, and some 4,000 Saudi doctors have received medical training in Canada. Saudi Arabia is also currently investing hundreds of billions of dollars in education and health-care facilities, as well as in a broad range of transport, water, power, urban development and other infrastructure projects.

Saudi Arabia is Canada’s largest trading partner in the Middle East, with two-way merchandise trade reaching $3.6 billion in 2011. Canadian exports to Saudi Arabia are also growing rapidly, having almost equalled by July 2012 the $860 million in total exports for 2011.

Canada has offered to host the first meeting of a revitalized JEC in 2013.

 

SOURCE

Canada – Ministry of Foreign Affairs

source: http://appablog.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/harper-government-opening-new-markets-in-middle-east-and-north-africa/


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Salafism and Arab Democratization

Salafism and Arab Democratization

By Kamran Bokhari
Vice President of Middle Eastern & South Asian Affairs
October 2, 2012 | 0900 GMT

The outbreak of the Arab Spring in 2011 brought significant attention to groups — known as Islamists — seeking to establish Islamic states in countries once ruled by secular autocrats. The bulk of this attention went to already established political groups such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which caused consternation in the West when its Freedom and Justice Party won control of both Egypt’s parliament and its presidency.

Much less attention was paid to the Brotherhood’s principal Islamist competitors, members of the ultraconservative Salafist movement, despite their second-place finish in Egypt’s parliamentary elections. This changed in late September when certain Salafists played a key role in the unrest in reaction to an anti-Islamic video posted on the Internet.

Since then, Salafism has become the subject of much public discourse — though as is often the case with unfamiliar subjects, questions are vastly more numerous than answers. This is compounded by the rapidity of its rise from a relatively minor, apolitical movement to an influential Islamist phenomenon.

Origins and Goals of Salafism

Modern Salafism is based on an austere reinterpretation of Islam, calling for Muslims to return to the original teachings outlined in the Koran and the practices of the Prophet Mohammed as understood by the earliest generation, i.e., the Companions of the Prophet. From the Salafist perspective, non-Islamic thought has contaminated the message of “true” Islam for centuries, and this excess must be jettisoned from the Islamic way of life.

Salafists are a minority among the global Muslim population and even among Islamists. Unlike members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists do not belong to a singular organization. Instead, the movement comprises a diffuse agglomeration of neighborhood preachers, societal groups and — only very recently — political parties, none of which are necessarily united in ideology.

In many ways, Salafism can be seen as a rejection of the political ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. For most of the movement’s existence, it shunned politics — and thus Islamism — in favor of a focus on personal morality and individual piety, arguing that an Islamic state could not exist without Muslims first returning to the tenets of “true” Islam. This means Salafism also was at odds with the concept of jihadism — itself a violent offshoot of Salafism — as practiced by groups such as al Qaeda that sought to use force to manifest their Islamist ideology.

The Salafist movement could also afford to stay away from political activism in large part because it had a political backer in the government of Saudi Arabia. While many Salafists didn’t agree with some of Riyadh’s policies, its historical role as the birthplace of Salafism and role as the patron underwriting the global spread of Salafist thought kept the movement within the Saudi orbit.

This remained the case until the 1991 Gulf War, in which Saudi Arabia was forced to allow some 500,000 U.S. troops into the kingdom to protect itself from Baathist Iraq, after the latter’s brief occupation of Kuwait. The move caused an uproar over the religious legitimacy of allowing non-Muslim soldiers on what many consider to be holy grounds, and it also gave way to a wider debate about the political state of affairs of the Saudi kingdom. Prominent scholars began publicly calling for reform, which led to Salafists in general engaging in political discourse and, eventually, to the concept of Salafism as an Islamist philosophy.

Nevertheless, Salafists would not become a political force for another two decades, simply because it takes time for an apolitical religious movement to develop a political philosophy. At the same time, the Saudi leadership was rallying the country’s religious establishment to contain these newly politicized Salafists. The 9/11 attacks and subsequent U.S. actions against jihadism further advanced Salafist thought as the sect tried to hold on to its core values amid U.S.-led international pressure for reform, distinguish itself from jihadists and come up with a viable political alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Arab Spring

By the end of the 2000s, Salafism had spread across the Arab world, most notably to Egypt and Tunisia, expanding both the number of its adherents and its institutional scope, which now included social organizations engaged in charity, relief and community work. They stopped short of formal political groups, largely because of the autocratic regimes under which they lived, but they quietly developed the infrastructure for such groups. It was under these circumstances that the Salafists found themselves at the beginning of the Arab Spring.

The case of Egypt’s Salafists is the most telling. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, they were caught unprepared when the popular agitation largely led by liberal youth groups broke out and began to consume decades-old secular autocratic regimes. While they eventually were able to overshadow the largely non-Islamist forces that played a key role in forcing the ouster of then-President Hosni Mubarak, they lacked the political machine that the Brotherhood had developed over the course of some 80 years. The result was the rise of various Salafist forces haphazardly trying to assert themselves in a post-authoritarian Egypt.

Several Egyptian Salafist groups applied for licenses to form political parties. Two prominent parties — al-Nour and al-Asala — emerged along with a host of individuals, such as Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, who ran as an independent candidate for president. The two Salafist parties banded together with the newly formed political wing of the former jihadist group Gamaa al-Islamiya — the Building and Development Party — to form the Islamist Bloc. The alliance was able to garner more than a quarter of ballots cast in the parliamentary polls late last year, coming in second place behind the Brotherhood.

What was most important about these Salafists participating in mainstream politics is that they embraced the electoral process after decades of having denounced democracy as un-Islamic. In other words, they ultimately adopted the approach of the Muslim Brotherhood, which they had hitherto vehemently rejected. This transformation has been more a rushed affair stemming from expediency rather than a natural ideological evolution.

There is an expectation that radical forces joining the political mainstream could, over time, lead to their de-radicalization. That may be true in the case of states with strong democratic systems, but in most Arab countries — which are just now beginning their journey away from authoritarianism — the Salafist embrace of electoral politics is likely to delay and perhaps even disrupt the democratization process and destabilize Egypt and by extension the region.

Much of this chaos will stem from the fact that the move to accept democratic politics has led to further fragmentation of the Salafist landscape. Many Salafists still are not comfortable with democracy, and those who have cautiously adopted it are divided into many factions. The result is that no one Salafist entity can speak for the bulk of the sect.

What Lies Ahead

Clearly, the Salafists are bereft of any tradition of civil dissent. That said, they have exhibited a strong sense of urgency to exercise their nascent freedom and engage in political activism. The outcome of this was the rioting that took place in reaction to the anti-Islamic film.

The Salafists are not just suffering from arrested political development; they face an intellectual discrepancy. On one hand, they wish to be part of the new democratic order and a mainstream player. On the other, they subscribe to a radical agenda that dictates the imposition of their stern interpretation of Islamic law across the Arab and Muslim world.

Their envisioned order is not just a problem for secularists, Christians, Jews and other minorities but also for more moderate Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood lost its monopoly on Islamism close to four decades ago but back then it didn’t matter because the Brotherhood was an opposition movement. Now that the group has won political power in Egypt, the Salafists represent a threat to its political interests.

Some of the more politically savvy Salafists, especially the political parties, are willing to work with the Muslim Brotherhood toward the common goals of furthering the democratic transition and containing radical and militant tendencies. Ultimately, however, they seek to exploit the Brotherhood’s pragmatism in order to undermine the mainstream Islamist movement’s support among religious voters. Additionally, the Salafists are also trying to make use of their role as mediators between the Brotherhood-led government and the jihadists active in the Sinai region to enhance their bargaining power and lessen the Brotherhood’s.

Salafists — whether they operate through legal means or through raw street power — can be expected to create problems for Egypt’s new government led by President Mohammed Morsi, especially when it comes to foreign policy matters. A prime example is the recent case of the film-related violence, during which Morsi had a difficult time balancing the need to placate the masses at home and maintain a working relationship with the United States, upon which Egypt relies for its economic well-being. While the anger over the film is a passing phenomenon, the underlying dynamic persists.

There is also no shortage of issues for right-wing Islamists to exploit. U.S. imperatives in the region will continue to place the Morsi government in a tight spot and provide reasons for the Salafists to oppose Cairo’s policies. Even more volatile than the dealings between the Morsi administration and Washington will be Israeli-Egyptian relations.

So far, Morsi has managed to avoid dealing too directly with Israel. But the Egyptian president and the Brotherhood cannot avoid this for too long. They know that they will face situations where they could be caught between the need to maintain peaceful relations with Israel and deal with Salafists taking advantage of the widespread anti-Israeli sentiment among Egyptians. This is one of the reasons Morsi and his associates have been speaking of revising the peace treaty with Israel, which is an attempt to manage the inevitable backlash on the home front.

Egypt’s difficulties are particularly pronounced given the country’s status as the leader of the Arab world, but Salafists of various stripes are slowly emerging as political stakeholders across the region, especially in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Democratization by its very nature is a messy affair in any context, but in the case of the Arab spring, Salafist entities can be expected to complicate political transitions and undermine stability and security in the Middle East.

The major challenge to stability in the Arab world thus lies only partially in the transition to democracy from autocracy. Greater than that is the challenge mainstream Islamists face from a complex and divided Salafist movement.

Salafism and Arab Democratization is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.
Simply copy and paste this code: “:<a href=”http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/salafism-and-arab-democratization”>Salafism and Arab Democratization


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Foreign Affairs paid $2M for study on threats to embassies

The Canadian Press
Posted: Sep 15, 2012

The Foreign Affairs Department paid almost $2 million to an international security firm for a sweeping intelligence study of potential threats to Canada’s foreign embassies.

The assessment would have undoubtedly informed the Harper government’s decision to close its embassy in Tehran last week.

The contract was awarded earlier this year to Control Risks Group, a company that boasts 34 offices across the world, and a network of government, police, aid groups and media.

Neither the company nor Foreign Affairs would comment specifically on the nature of the work done.

The government has said repeatedly that the safety of its diplomats was the primary reason for pulling out of the Iranian capital.

Canada shut its Cairo embassy for a day on Thursday after anti-U.S. riots broke out in Egypt, Libya and Yemen over an American film that denigrates the prophet Muhammad. An attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, claimed the life of its ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three American embassy co-workers.

$2M for work done in under 10 weeks

According to the government’s procurement notice, Foreign Affairs was looking for an intelligence firm to describe possible threats to its diplomatic corps from terrorism, instability and natural disasters in 174 countries, including 46 major cities.

The government paid $1,997,903 for work done between Jan. 25 and March 31. The government was willing to spend up to $5 million for the Baseline Threat Assessment, or BTA, comprised of 15- to 30-page documents for each country.

The government put out the call for tenders in December, one month after the British embassy in Tehran was stormed by an angry mob. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has cited the attack on the British mission as one of the reasons for the Tehran pullout.

Baird said Friday that planning on the Iranian embassy withdrawal had been underway for several months.

The BTAs were to give a ranking in seven categories: political instability; criminality; terrorism/insurgency; conflict zones; natural disasters; the health environment; and the general environment — “e.g. fatalities, cultural constraints.”

The government called for the study to assign labels of “low, medium, high and critical” to each of those seven categories.

The government wanted the BTAs to be “living documents, which will allow the department to assess the vulnerability of government of Canada assets abroad (people, programs, infrastructure) and determine appropriate security safeguards.”

Angry anti-U.S. protests have spread to 20 more countries, including Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“I’m obviously very concerned with what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa. As I’ve said before, our diplomatic personnel are not military, they are not paid to put their lives on the line,” Harper said Friday.

“It’s my responsibility to ensure that our people are protected. Obviously we’ve closed one mission that’s in Iran where we thought the risks are particularly high.”

On its website, Control Risks says it provides strategic security advice to companies, governments and non-profit organizations.

“Our services range from providing strategic consultancy, through to expert analysis and in-depth investigations, to handling sensitive political issues, to practical on the ground protection and support,” the company says.

“Whatever the nature of the political, security or integrity risk facing our clients, Control Risks can tailor an effective solution that will meet their exact requirements.”

The 2010 federal budget set aside $450 million over seven years for the Security Abroad Strategy to bolster security at Canada’s foreign embassies.

source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/15/pol-canadian-embassies-security-study.html


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Harper and Putin talk tough on trade, Mideast, but warm up over hockey

Mark MacKinnon
Vladivostok, Russia — The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Sep. 08 2012, 7:49 AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Sep. 08 2012, 4:08 PM EDT

‘There’s lots of things that Mr. Putin and our government do not necessarily agree on, but our conversations are extremely frank on these issues,’ Canadian Prime Minister says.

At least there was hockey to talk about.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Russian President Vladimir Putin reminisced briefly but warmly about the epochal hockey series 40 years ago between Canada and the Soviet Union during a bilateral meeting Saturday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit.

More Related to this Story

It was the only time the two leaders found common ground during a meeting marked by disagreements about policy toward Iran and Syria, as well as the unimpressive Canada-Russia trade relationship.

The meeting – the first tête-à-tête between Mr. Putin and Mr. Harper since 2007 – began awkwardly with Mr. Putin running more than an hour late because of a packed schedule of other bilateral meetings. Mr. Harper then made Mr. Putin wait several minutes before finally entering the meeting room to stiff smiles and handshakes.

continue reading: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/harper-and-putin-talk-tough-on-trade-mideast-but-warm-up-over-hockey/article4529251/

More Related to this Story


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Cameron and Obama ended the neocon era. But the era of Assad goes on

David Cameron and Barack Obama buried the neocons in Washington. But the west will pay a price for the quiet life

By
The Guardian
Wednesday 14 March 2012 21.20 GMT

Barack Obama welcomes David Cameron
Barack Obama welcomes David Cameron during an official arrival ceremony on the south lawn of the White House in Washington today. Photograph: Mark Wilson / POOL/EPA

It is as easy to be distracted by the outward glamour of a prime ministerial visit to Washington as it is to fail to discern its occasional real inner substance. Both things apply in the case of David Cameron’s White House talks with Barack Obama. On one level they were the very embodiment of the self-indulgent vacuity of which Simon Jenkins wrote here. On another, they marked the end of a chapter in modern history.

On Wednesday in the White House they buried the neocons. Or, to put it rather more carefully, since neoconservatism has been through many contrasting incarnations and the term is widely misused, Cameron and Obama marked the imminent close of the phase of US-UK foreign policy that began after 9/11 with the coming together of American imperial power and British support for the active promotion of democracy and liberal institutions, particularly in the Muslim world.

Of course, like most attempts to draw a line in the sand of history, this one is approximate and inconclusive in many ways. The Afghanistan campaign which, along with the jihadist threat, is one of the few constants of the past decade, is not over yet. There will still be nearly 70,000 US troops in Afghanistan at the turn of this year and 9,000 British until late next, with an “enduring commitment” beyond that. The interventionist reflex, the wish to nurture liberal institutions as a counterweight to jihadism, and the sheer ability to act with greater military effectiveness than most rivals will all continue to shape US and UK foreign policy in the Muslim world and elsewhere for as far ahead as the eye can see.

Meanwhile, for all the buddiness of the US visit and the Churchillian rhetoric of their Washington Post op-ed piece this week, the two leaders do not march in lockstep anyway. Obama put it with utter clarity in Wednesday’s White House press conference. Britain and America are different economies in different places. The one nation is an indisputable first-rank world power. The other is a leading second-rank one that cannot act unilaterally even if it wanted to. The US is bound into the Middle East, in particular in relations with Israel, in ways that do not apply to Britain to the same degree. Cameron was more committed to intervention in Libya and is keener on intervention in Syria than Obama.

Yet, even when all these and many other provisos are taken into account, Wednesday was still the end of an era. Over Afghanistan – despite all the talk about the upcoming Nato summit, the handover to Afghan security forces and Obama’s claim that there will be “no steep cliff” of rapid pullout at the end of 2014 – the aim is withdrawal. Recent killings of Brits and by Americans and Wednesday’s audacious attack inside Camp Bastion are all harbingers of that. “People get weary,” said Obama, in a moment of frankness. The pullout will happen because the voters have lost the will to fight.

The similar surface noise over Iran and Syria also conceals a deeper current, a long withdrawing roar of disengagement. Cameron and Obama dwelt less on Iran and Syria than they did on Afghanistan. That’s partly because there is less they can do there, even the Americans, certainly the British. The Washington Post joint article emphasised that there is time and space to pursue a diplomatic solution in Iran, buttressed by stronger sanctions. There is not an iota of ambiguity in the toughness of the language, but the unspoken reality is that Obama would do almost anything to avoid getting trapped into a military strike against Iran. That doesn’t mean that it won’t happen. But it does mean that he thinks, rightly, that it would be a mark of failure if it did.

In Syria the limits of engagement are even more stark. At the White House press conference, Obama spoke about aid to the opposition, about pressure on the regime, about mobilising the nations and tightening the sanctions. Cameron threatened the Assad dynasty with the international criminal court. It all sounds like action, and it is all useful incremental stuff. But it is action at a distance, with strict limits. It is not intervention, because the international order has a collective interest in inaction and because the costs – not least the political costs at home – are deemed too high.

All this is, in very large part, the politics of where we are now. Faced with all three of these grim situations at once – a decade-long losing struggle against a feudal patriarchal narco-state, the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a paranoid revolutionary theocracy, and the readiness of a corrupt Arab socialist autocrat to kill his own people for the sake of the revolution – it is hardly surprising that Obama and Cameron hold back. Who’s to blame them for doing so? The historic failure in Iraq leaves them little choice. But so does the fragility of the global economy. Even if the US and the UK were faced with only one of the three problems, Iraq and the recession would make them think twice.

A large part of all of us breathes a huge sigh of relief at this. The post-George Bush era finally beckons. Withdrawal from Afghanistan means no more pointless deaths of young soldiers, no more massacres, insults and acts of desecration against Afghans – at least by Americans. Western nations think in instant gratification terms and short timescales and this has all gone on too long. The west has had enough of fear and shame and hard times, of making enemies out of strangers and realising that getting people to change their ways is harder than it first seemed. People get weary, just like Obama said.

Another part of us, though, ought to reflect on what is being lost by this overwhelming collective disengagement. The disengagement is happening because the mistakes – crimes if you prefer – of the past have created a collective war-weariness that has now become a collective war-wariness. It is natural to want the conflict to end.

Who wouldn’t? It’s not wrong to want a quiet life, but how right is it when it comes at a price that someone else will inevitably have to pay? That wasn’t acceptable to earlier generations who scorned non-intervention in Spain or Abyssinia. Obama and Cameron closed the door on the George Bush era on Wednesday, to the general relief of the world. But the era of Mullah Omar, Ayatollah Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad goes on, posing questions that will one day have to be answered.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree

continue reading source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/14/cameron-obama-ended-neocon-era

Related


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Harper’s Christian Right Wing

By Murray Dobbin, 17 May 2010, TheTyee.ca


thetyee.ca

The PM is fomenting a culture war, but his opponents barely seem to realize it.

Christian end-timers welcome Armageddon and The Rapture that follows for them. If you’ve ever heard them go beyond defending Israel to hoping for an all out conflagration in the Middle East you could almost be forgiven if you dismissed them as marginal whack-jobs good only for a kind of black humour entertainment.

I said almost forgiven. Because as Marci MacDonald points out in her new book, The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, if you don’t take these people seriously you may be quietly contributing to the demise of democracy and all the social democratic programs it has created in the past 50 years. (See her 2006 article on the subject here.)

Stephen Harper takes them very seriously, to the point where he has encouraged and facilitated the rapid build-up of a powerful Christian right political machine on Parliament Hill and beyond, a machine that is getting its way more and more with the Conservative government. The way McDonald explains it, Harper suffered a serious erosion of support from the neo-liberal crowd when in 2008 he buckled to NDP and Liberal pressure to spend billions to stave off a serious recession — and brought the country its worst deficit situation in decades.

To replace that part of his core vote, Harper had to reinforce and activate the other half: the Christian right. Attacks on science; excluding abortion from his maternal health program overseas; an escalation of his assault on women’s equality; more attacks on human rights institutions; the continuing get-tough-on-crime agenda (including a new law eliminating the concept of a “pardon”); a bare-knuckled assault on the godless CBC; the most fierce pro-Israeli policy of any Western country and his general contempt for the institutions of democracy all play to this extremist Christian constituency. So do Harper’s massive tax cuts because they effectively starve government.

  • Anon: Fun facts from the forbiddden Gospels… Christ was born 5,500 years after Adam, he was to mark the midway point, well it’s 2,000 years later kids, we still have 3,500 to go….

Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Tougher foreign policy vital to Canada: Baird

By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
December 28, 2011

OTTAWA — Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird knows some of his government’s positions on the world stage are unpopular. Supporting Israel and walking away from the Kyoto accord earlier this month are two examples.

Baird won’t apologize for either.

“We don’t develop foreign policy to be popular around the world,” he says in a recent interview with Postmedia News. “Sometimes you’re alone saying something, and then a number of years later, it’s conventional wisdom.”

The refusal to concede on issues of importance to the government is one of the clearest marks that Canada’s approach to world affairs has undergone a dramatic change since the Conservatives first came to power nearly six years ago,

Gone is the so-called “soft power” and “human security agenda” of the previous Liberal government, symbolized by consensus building at the United Nations and diplomatic initiatives like peacekeeping.

In its place is a clear pursuit of interests linked to an uncompromising projection of values backed up by a strong military.

The government’s top concern, says Baird, is Canadian economic prosperity.

“It is a lens through which we view almost anything,” he says. “Foreign policy has become even more important to the economy. It’s really essential.”

The Foreign Affairs Department budget has increased by about $700 million since 2006 to $2.8 billion. Where it has resulted in more feet on the ground, those have largely been trade commissioners in trade offices opened in China, India, Brazil and other economic hotspots.

At the same time, Baird is quick to list the number of free trade and foreign investment agreements being pursued by the government. Perhaps not by coincidence, when Canada’s embassy in Tripoli, Libya reopened in September, the first officials deployed were trade officers, not political and human rights experts.

But nothing is bigger than the United States, and Baird identifies the recent Canada-U.S. border security agreement as the best example of “traditional diplomacy” from the last year.

“It took a solid, personal relationship at the top between the prime minister and the president in order to initiate something, successfully see its conclusion and announce it,” Baird says.

The same is true with the mission in Libya, he adds.

“I think Libya’s a big success because of strong leadership on behalf of the prime minister,” Baird says, though he also praises Gen. Charles Bouchard, the Canadian commander who oversaw the NATO operation.

In fact, the foreign affairs minister describes Libya as Canada’s biggest diplomatic accomplishment in the past year.

“No doubt the diplomatic work, the coalition-building and the military success in Libya was a big one for Canada,” he says. “How many thousands, tens of thousands, of civilian lives were saved? It’s just a remarkable accomplishment. (Moammar) Gadhafi was just the worst of the worst.”

The Canadian military has emerged as a major player in Canadian foreign policy in recent years, bolstered by the fact the Defence Department budget has increased nearly $5.6 billion to $20.3 billion since the Conservative government came into power. This has included the purchase of new aircraft, ships and armoured vehicles, as well as heavy combat roles in Afghanistan and Libya.

Critics have lamented what they say is the Conservative government’s prioritizing of military power over Canada’s traditional strength, diplomacy.

Sitting in his 10th-floor office at Foreign Affairs headquarters, known in Ottawa circles as Fort Pearson, Baird says the government is simply undoing years of damage wreaked by Liberal governments in the 1990s and early 2000s.

“The military was gutted for 13 years,” he says. “Hollowed out. Even the man the Liberals appointed to be chief of defence staff (Rick Hillier) called it a ‘decade of darkness.’ That didn’t happen here at DFAIT.”

But while the government is preparing to spend billions on new F-35 fighter jets, Baird refuses to rule out the closure of Canadian embassies abroad through budget cuts next year.

“I’m confident within the department we can achieve our mandate,” he says. “If spending is unsustainable, that’s the biggest threat to the public service, that’s the biggest threat to the department.”

Baird’s appointment to the Foreign Affairs portfolio in May came as a surprise to many. Known for his bombastic style in the House of Commons, many wondered whether he would be able to make the transition to becoming Canada’s top diplomat.

Baird says the biggest lesson he’s learned is that nothing matters more in Foreign Affairs than personal relationships.

“When we have an issue, whether it’s in the United States, whether it’s in Turkey, being able to pick up the phone and talk to my counterpart directly about it,” he says.

The country’s failure to land a UN Security Council seat in October 2010, ultimately losing to Portugal, has called into question whether the Conservative government has squandered the goodwill built up over the decades by previous Canadian governments.

Baird initially tries to blame North Korea and Iran, but eventually acknowledges some of the unpopular positions taken by Canada in recent years were a factor in turning away countries in the Middle East, Africa and other parts of the world.

When asked how he reconciles the importance of strong relationships with the fact a number of positions adopted by the government are unpopular with the international community, Baird indicates those who are most critical of Canada’s stances aren’t likely to be friends anyway.

“We’ve taken a tough stand on human rights in some parts of the world, and that makes some people feel very uncomfortable,” he says. “If you’re a government which doesn’t respect human rights, you’re probably not keen on Canada talking about the rights of women, the rights of religious minorities, the rights of gays and lesbians.”

In recent weeks, Canada has been called out by many nations, including European allies, for abandoning the Kyoto Protocol.

Baird says only a few countries have brought the issue up with him personally, adding that the government is simply leading where other nations will eventually follow.

He says this is exactly what happened with Canadian calls several years ago for all major emitters to be included in whatever climate change agreement is negotiated after Kyoto.

“People may not have liked our position on climate change in 2007, but they’ve adopted it almost wholly across much of the world today,” he said

original source: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tougher+foreign+policy+vital+Canada+Baird/5916863/story.html


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Harper’s dangerous game of sectarian division

Harper's dangerous game of sectarian division

How Harper has 'gone to questionable lengths' in using Israel to turn Jews away from the Liberals

By Donald Barry

20 October 2010 – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to power in 2006 with little experience in foreign affairs but with a well developed plan to transform his minority Conservative administration into a majority government replacing the Liberals as Canada's "natural governing party."[1]

Because his party's core of Anglo-Protestant supporters was not large enough to achieve this goal, Harper appealed to non- traditional Conservatives, including Jews, on the basis of shared social values. His efforts were matched by those of Jewish leaders and the government of Israel to win the backing of the government and its followers in the face of declining domestic support for Israel and the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism.

These factors accelerated a change in Canada's Middle East policy that began under Prime Minister Paul Martin, from a carefully balanced stance to one that overwhelmingly favors Israel. Harper's "pro-Israel politics," Michelle Collins observes, has "won the respect—and support—of a large segment of Canada's organized Jewish community."[2] However, it has isolated Canada from significant shifts in Middle East diplomacy and marginalized its ability to play a constructive role in the region.

Harper and the Jewish Vote

When he became leader of the Canadian Alliance party, which merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party of Canada in 2004, Tom Flanagan says that Harper realized "The traditional Conservative base of Anglophone Protestants [was] too narrow to win modern Canadian elections."[3] In a speech to the conservative organization Civitas, in 2003, Harper argued that the only way to achieve power was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or "neo-cons," as they'd become known, but on what he called "theo-cons"—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defense. even foreign policy had become a theo-con issue, he pointed out, driven by moral and religious convictions. "the truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values," he said, "so conservatives must do the same."

Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents' right to spank their children to putting "hard power" behind the country's foreign policy commitments, he cautioned that it also had to choose its battlefronts with care. "the social-conservative issues we choose should not be denominational," he said, "but should unite social conservatives of different denominations and even different faiths."4

In the 2006 election, the victorious Conservatives elected 124 members of parliament (MPs) to the 308 seat House of Commons, subsequently adding three more members.5

The party maintained its stranglehold on western Canada, increased its representation in Ontario and made a breakthrough in Quebec. It swept cities in Alberta but fared less well in other urban centers where the largest multicultural populations reside. Increasing support among Quebeckers and minority voters is critical to Harper's goal of forming a majority government. As Flanagan puts it, "The suburbs of Toronto, Vancouver, and to a lesser extent of other cities are now filling up with people who, based on their social values and capitalist work ethic, should be natural Conservative voters, but who are still emotionally tied to the Liberal Party."6 The main targets are the Chinese, Korean, Hindu, Jewish, Persian, Italian, and Vietnamese communities.7

Flanagan claims Harper "has done all he can" to win their support, "starting with his anti-same-sex-marriage advertising campaign of early 2005. He insisted that the 2005-06 [election] platform contain specific measures, such as an apology for the Chinese head tax, lower landing fees for immigrants, and better recognition of their credentials; and he has worked hard to fulfill these promises as quickly as possible after forming government."8 After taking power, Harper created an "ethnic outreach team" directed by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and Jason Kenney, currently Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, to wage a "focused direct voter campaign to build support" for the Conservatives in order to "replace the Liberals as the primary voice of new Canadians and ethnic minorities." The PMO is in charge of statements in parliament concerning ethnic communities and of securing the attendance of the prime minister or senior ministers at "major ethnic events." Kenney and designated MPs liaise with minority leaders and communities.9

Although only 371,000 strong, Canadian Jews are an established part of the country's economic and political landscape. Most also "have a strong affinity for and identification with Israel."10 Concentrated primarily in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg, they are an important focus of Harper's attention. In a 2007 briefing paper, the ethnic outreach team used the Toronto area constituency of Thornhill, the most Jewish riding in the country, to show how the recruitment strategy works. Comprising 37 percent of the electorate, Jews were a key target in the effort to secure the 5,000 additional votes the Conservatives estimated they would need to unseat the Liberal incumbent. The approach included maintaining an up-to-date database of Jewish and other ethnic group electors, championing the party's positions on issues that concern the community, targeted mailings, and individual contact at various events. Harper also assigned a PMO official to keep in touch with Jewish groups.11

Conservative strategists estimate that 20 percent of minority voters are not "accessible" to the party. This figure appears to include Arab Canadians, although the Conservatives have begun to make overtures to carefully chosen Muslim groups. Arab Canadians are almost twice as numerous as their Jewish counterparts, but they are not as well established and are more reluctant to engage in politics. The community, moreover, is "divided along national, regional and religious lines, which has actively prevented it from presenting a united front to policy makers."12

The Conservative party's interest in the Middle East is relatively recent. The Reform Party of Canada, which was established in 1987 and became the Canadian Alliance thirteen years later, paid little attention. But under Stockwell Day, an evangelical Christian who was the first leader of the Alliance, the party began taking strong stands on issues affecting Israel. After taking over the leadership in 2002, Harper, who had no record of speaking out on the Middle East, made it clear that the party would remain firmly in Israel's corner. Reportedly, his thinking was influenced by neoconservatives in the United States, including expatriate Canadians David Frum, then a speechwriter in President George W. Bush's White House, and Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.13 Accusing the Liberals of "moral neutrality" in world affairs, Harper said an Alliance government would adopt a "value-oriented foreign policy" with "a stronger sense of Canada as a member of an alliance, a member of a family of western democratic nations that share certain political values—and our determination to work with those countries to achieve these things. We have a view of Israel…as an ally and part of our western democratic family."14 Lloyd Mackey credits Day with building ties to the conservative Jewish community when he was Harper's foreign affairs critic. Mackey identifies Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, and Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, as key contacts. "The tradeoff is that B'nai Brith provides social conservatives with access to the conservative Jewish community, while McVety encourages the 'bonding' of Christians and Jews as an alternative to Christians proselytizing Jews."15

According to Mackey, "the evangelical Christian viewpoint," embraced by many members of the dominant Alliance wing of the Conservative party "has always tended to be quite pro-Israel."16 Pollster Conrad Winn agrees, citing surveys indicating that "churchgoers and Christians show the most support for the religious rights of Jews in Canada and also the strongest support for Israel."17 The Conservative caucus contains up to seventy MPs who can be called evangelical Christians.18 This has enhanced the party's appeal to Jewish voters and helped to blunt criticism that the adoption of positions favoring Israel is not simply a response to pressures from the Jewish lobby and the Israeli government.

The Jewish Lobby and Israeli Government

For their part, Canada's Jewish leaders were alarmed that Canadian support for Israel was falling at a time when threats to that country were on the rise. "In particular," says Harold Waller, "there was concern that Israel's position in both public opinion in general and in elite opinion was deteriorating, that the media was not treating Israel fairly, and that government policy, especially at the United Nations, had tilted away from Israel."19 Underlying these trends, Waller claims, was "the growing clout of Muslim voters (especially in some key areas), an entrenched foreign affairs bureaucracy that tilted toward the Arabs, and declining enthusiasm for Israel among party elites as Israel struggled to combat Palestinian terrorism through the use of techniques that were controversial in some circles."20

In 2002, an ad hoc group, consisting "mainly of wealthy Jewish businesspeople," reviewed the community's lobbying efforts.21 Calling itself the "Israel Emergency Cabinet," it engaged GPC International, a public affairs firm, to devise a strategy to improve Jewish advocacy. This led to the creation of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), which "oversees and coordinates the advocacy work" of five agencies: the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canada-Israel Committee, the Quebec-Israel Committee, National Jewish Campus Life, and the University Outreach Committee. The right-leaning B'nai Brith has remained outside the arrangement.22

A study of Canadian attitudes toward Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, commissioned by the CIJA in the fall of 2004, offered a sobering assessment. Of those who considered themselves knowledgeable, 32 percent supported the Palestinians while 26 percent backed Israel. Overall, 89 percent held Israelis and Palestinians equally responsible for ongoing violence; 57 percent thought the conflict involved the human rights of Palestinians rather than the protection of Israelis from terrorism. Eighty-three percent did not want Canada to take sides, and 50 percent thought it should not play a role in settling the conflict. Unlike Jewish Canadians, only 11 percent thought the media viewed Israel unfavorably, while 33 percent saw the media as biased against Palestinians.23

The fact that conservative Christians are most supportive of Israel would make Harper's party a target for Jewish lobbying efforts. The CIJA adopted a two-fold strategy, "to underscore the shared values of an enlightened democracy between Canadians and Israelis and to downplay the significance of whatever the Palestinians were or were not doing."24 B'nai Brith was also active in strengthening ties to evangelical Christians.25

In the meantime, building on a strategy begun by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the 1970s, the Israeli government began encouraging visits by Christian evangelical groups to build support for Israel and to increase tourist income. In 2003, paralleling similar visits by their US counterparts, twenty prominent Canadian evangelical clergymen, commentators and educators went to Israel at the invitation of the country's chief rabbi to strengthen ties between Christians and Jews. The group was led by Charles McVety, who, in addition to leading Canada Christian College, represented the US-based John Hagee Ministries in Canada. Hagee, a prominent figure in the Christian Zionist movement, heads Christians United for Israel, which lobbies on behalf of Israel in the United States. The goal of this and subsequent visits was to rally support within Canada's estimated 2.5 million member evangelical community.26

In 2007, the Israeli Knesset established the Christian Allies Caucus to expand Christian support for Israel. The Canadian Israel Allies Caucus was launched in February 2007, with Harper in attendance.27 An executive assistant at Israel's embassy in Ottawa is the Jewish representative of the Christian Allies Caucus in Canada. The caucus also has a Canadian Christian representative based in Ottawa. Activities have included speaking tours of major Canadian cities to encourage evangelical Christians to back Israel. According to a caucus representative, support within the evangelical community continues to grow.28

The Liberals and Jewish Voters

Historically Canadian Jews backed the Liberal Party because of its support for Israel and its progressive social policies. By the 1970s Jewish support for the Liberals was 20 percent above the national average.29 Joe Clark's Progressive Conservative Party attempted to sway Jewish voters in the 1979 election by promising to move Canada's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had resisted pressure from Menachem Begin to do so, but Clark succumbed to the urgings of party candidates in closely contested Toronto ridings with a substantial Jewish vote. The Conservatives won four of those seats to the Liberals' two, although party organizers said the embassy pledge was marginal to the outcomes. Clark tried to implement the plan after he became prime minister. However, he retreated in the face of strong opposition, including the threat of sanctions from Arab states, concern among Canadian businesses, adverse public opinion, and the reaction of the Jewish community, which did not want to become embroiled in the controversy.30

The issue helped to defeat the Conservatives in the 1980 election, which returned Trudeau's Liberals to power. According to Charles Flicker, it also had a long-term impact on Canada's Middle East policy, "which shifted from a pro-Israel bias to a more even-handed treatment…. Canada established relations with the PLO, its voting record at the United Nations was more balanced, and it strongly criticized the invasion of Lebanon in 1982."31 Still, Canadian Jewry, which "flourished" under Trudeau's policy of multiculturalism that sought to promote social cohesion by recognizing the equality of Canada's ethnic populations, remained loyal to the Liberals. "Jews were not only well represented in virtually all sectors of Canadian society," says David Goldberg, "they also held leadership positions in, and were making important contributions to, many of these sectors."32 The connection remained strong during the 1984-93 period when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government held power, although its policies were not substantially different from those of its predecessor.33

However, the "increasingly controversial nature of Israeli foreign and domestic politics" soon ushered in a new era in Canada's relations with Israel.34 Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's Liberal government, in office from 1993 until 2003, supported Israel's right to exist within secure borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state. It opposed Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories and Israel's security fence inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and condemned Palestinian terrorism and excessive retaliation by Israel. At the United Nations, Canada parted company with the United States and Australia, and joined the dominant European and developing country majority in supporting or abstaining on resolutions sponsored by Arab states criticizing Israel's occupation of the territories, its attacks against civilians, and its nuclear weapons program.

"Although these votes were clearly biased against Israel," columnist John Ibbitson observes, Canada saw them "as one of the few forums through which the Palestinian people [could] make their voices heard."35 At home, Jewish voters, who showed greater willingness "to openly express competing perspectives on Israel," continued to vote for the Liberals at a rate 8 to 10 percent above the national average.36

Canadian policy began to shift under Chrétien's successor, Paul Martin. According to the Jewish Independent, "pro-Israel" parliamentarians gained "significantly more strength" in government, with six members of the recently formed "Liberals for Israel" caucus receiving cabinet appointments.37 Cabinet and caucus supporters "pushed hard" for a change in Canada's votes at the UN, as did Jewish organizations, including the Canada-Israel Committee, which lobbied the government to adopt criteria to assess resolutions it considered biased against Israel.38 "One of the most powerful voices" says Ibbitson, was that of Gerald Schwartz, a close advisor to Martin and a key fundraiser for his party leadership campaign. Liberal MPs with large Arab Canadian populations and foreign affairs officials warned that a change in policy would not be welcomed by Arab states.39 But the views of Israel's supporters prevailed.

The shift began in the summer of 2004 when Canada abstained on a heavily supported resolution that took note of a finding by the International Court of Justice that Israel's security barrier contravened international law. It continued during the General Assembly's annual fall debate when Canada joined the United States and a few other countries in voting against resolutions condemning Israeli violence against Palestinians and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza on which it had abstained in the past. The government argued that it could not support unbalanced measures condemning Israeli attacks against Palestinians while ignoring Palestinian assaults on Israelis. But Ottawa reversed earlier abstentions in supporting another resolution aimed at Israel, which called for a nuclear-free Middle East.40 The change in Canada's voting record was confirmed in November 2005 when Ottawa opposed three more resolutions on the basis that they were one-sided and hindered peace negotiations.41 But by then Martin's government had been defeated in parliament forcing an election that would bring Stephen Harper to power as head of a minority Conservative government.

Harper Comes to Power

During the election campaign Harper assured the CIJA that the Jewish community had "a good friend in the Conservative Party." Describing Israel as "the only fully fledged, developed democracy in that part of the world," he said "We share a unique relationship…that we believe all freedom oriented, democratic countries should share in." A Harper government would "not support resolutions at the UN that are aimed specifically at Israel or designed to create a bias in the resolution of the Middle East conflict." Harper's comments drew praise from Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, who expected Canada would be more active in "encouraging the kind of reforms that would allow the UN to fulfill the objectives it was initially designed to address," including an end to "the annual cycle of Israel-bashing."42

Dealing with Hamas

While the Canadian campaign was under way Palestinians were in the midst of an election of their own to choose a new Palestinian Legislative Assembly. It was apparent that Hamas, running on an anti-corruption platform, would defeat the ruling Fatah, confronting Canada and its allies with the challenge of how to deal with a democratically elected party espousing terrorism, and whether to continue their aid programs to the Palestinian Authority.43 In a conference call with Marc Gold, chairman of the Canada-Israel Committee, and Ed Morgan and Victor Goldbloom, the president and national executive chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Harper credited his party with forcing Chrétien's government to declare Hamas a terrorist organization in 2002. He added, "if institutions committed to terrorism are playing a role in the Palestinian state, whether elected or not, that is an indication to me that the road to democracy has not been travelled very far." The representatives seemed pleased. "I think you have answered fully," Gold replied.44

On February 14, after speaking with President Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Harper indicated that future Canadian aid to the Palestinian Authority would depend upon the new Hamas government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements, including the "road map," sponsored by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the UN, which called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.45 Confusion over the government's stand arose when foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay met with his Russian counterpart, who claimed Hamas had agreed to a "monitoring mechanism" to assure that aid would not be used for military purposes. Appearing to abandon his government's conditions, MacKay said the mechanism would ensure that aid reached civilians and that Canada would continue to provide some assistance. But he backtracked after receiving "a flurry of phone calls from pro-Israeli groups."46

Knowing that the United States and the European Union would soon suspend their aid programs to the Palestinian Authority, Harper decided that Canada would be the first country after Israel to do so. MacKay declared that Canada would have no contact with the Hamas government and would withhold aid until Harper's conditions had been met. The action would reduce by a third Canada's annual $25 million assistance package to the West Bank and Gaza. Another $10 million would continue to go to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East via the Canadian International Development Agency. "We cannot send any direct aid to an organization that refuses to renounce terrorist activities," said MacKay. "There will be no contact and no funds period."47

The announcement was praised by pro-Israel organizations and condemned by Arab and Muslim groups. "Canada has stood true to its principles by refusing to do business with a terrorist entity whose avowed aim continues to be the destruction of the Jewish state," said B'nai Brith. "A resounding slap in the face to Canadian values," charged the Canadian Islamic Congress, which accused Harper's government of "blindly following the lead of Washington and of the influential pro-Jewish lobby in both [the United States and Canada]."48 Opposition parties in parliament urged the government to concentrate on humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians.

Close observers of Middle East politics were also skeptical. Norman Spector, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel, applauded Ottawa's decision to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority but criticized its refusal to deal with Hamas. "I think we should be finding some way to explain to Hamas what it is going to take to become an accepted and respected member of the international community, and even if there is just a one percent chance of success, we should take that chance," said Spector. "We cannot foreclose any possible avenue to trying to resolve this conflict, and as good as it feels to say we have to cut off all contact with them, it won't work."49 However, Harper put more distance between his government and Hamas, telling a Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony that Hamas posed a threat to Israel similar to that of Nazi Germany.50

Evangelical Christians applauded Harper. Promoting his Christians United for Israel lobby group before an audience of 2,000 Canadian evangelical leaders and Jewish representatives, including Israel's ambassador, Alan Baker, and Major General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, chief of that country's military intelligence, at Charles McVety's Canada Christian College in Toronto, John Hagee praised the prime minister for denouncing Hamas. McVety established Christians United for Israel-Canada as an affiliate of Hagee's group.51

Meanwhile, Canada joined the United States in opposing a non-binding resolution in the UN Economic and Social Council calling on Israel to allow Palestinian refugee women and children displaced in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to return to their homes. Ottawa had abstained on the same vote a year earlier. Harper reportedly made the decision "quickly and with little consultation."52 MacKay denied that the vote marked a shift in Canadian policy. But the Canada-Israel Committee's Shimon Fogel left little doubt that this was the case, saying "This government is showing some really meaningful resolve in continuing and expanding on what the previous government had begun to do."53

War in Lebanon

Events in the Middle East took an unexpected turn on July 12, 2006, when Hezbollah militants fired rockets into northern Israel and attacked a military patrol, killing three soldiers and abducting two others in an attempt to force Israel to return Lebanese prisoners. Calling the attack "an act of war," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, ordered a massive artillery, air and ground offensive to break Hezbollah's grip on southern Lebanon. By the time the conflict ended 34 days later more than a thousand Lebanese civilians had been killed, almost a million had been displaced, and much of the country's infrastructure lay in ruins. Forty-three Israelis perished as a result of Hezbollah rocket attacks. An Israeli government sponsored commission would later call the operation a "serious failure."54

When hostilities broke out Harper was en route to Europe for meetings with Prime Minister Tony Blair in London, G8 colleagues in St. Petersburg, and President Jacques Chirac in Paris. Although up to 50,000 Canadians were stranded in Lebanon, Harper agreed with President George W. Bush that Israel had "the right to defend itself," describing its response as "measured."55 He also supported Blair's call for a return to the road map approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict but saw no evidence that Hamas agreed.56

The crisis in Lebanon dominated discussion among the G8 leaders. The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada opposed an immediate end to the fighting, in effect giving Israel a green light "to destroy as much of Hezbollah as it could." France, Germany and Russia agreed that Hezbollah had started the conflict but condemned "Israel's disproportionate response and insisted on an immediate cease-fire."57 The communiqué tried to bridge the gap. It expressed concern about the rising death toll, destruction of infrastructure, and the impact on Lebanon's government, and called for the return of captured Israeli soldiers, an end to rocket attacks on Israel, cessation of Israel's military operations and early removal of its forces in Gaza, and the release of arrested Palestinian politicians. Harper backed the statement, which Canadian officials insisted was consistent with his earlier comments.58

However, the declaration was overshadowed by the bombing deaths of eight members of a Montreal family in southern Lebanon, which accelerated Ottawa's plans to evacuate Canadian citizens from the country. Harper expressed sympathy to the relatives of the victims but moderated his earlier views only slightly. "We are not going to give in to the temptation of some to single out Israel, which was the victim of the initial attack," he said. "The onus remains on the parties that caused the conflict," although "We urge Israel and others to minimize civilian damage." Asked whether he would still describe Israel's response as "measured," he replied, "I think our evaluation of the situation has been accurate. Obviously there has been an ongoing escalation and, frankly, ongoing escalation is inevitable once conflict begins."59

Harper joined Bush in opposing Chirac's call for an immediate cease-fire, which, he argued, was not "the first thing" or "the only thing" called for in the G8's statement.60 But with domestic criticism growing, the prime minister, accompanied by a photographer, press aides and his security detail, diverted his aircraft to Cyprus to return the first of 15,000 Canadians rescued from Lebanon. The government would also provide a $1 million aid package for Lebanon, which would grow to $30.5 million by the time the conflict ended.61

An opinion poll suggested that most Canadians supported the government's handling of the evacuation, with 66 percent approving and 34 percent calling it inadequate. Criticism was strongest in Quebec, where most of the country's 150,000 Lebanese Canadians reside.62 Only 45 percent agreed that Harper's position on the conflict was "fair and balanced" versus 44 percent who thought it "decidedly too pro-Israel." Again, opposition was highest in Quebec, where 62 percent were dissatisfied with the government's stand.63

Apparently believing that the controversy would not damage its electoral prospects, the government stuck to its position. It participated in peace talks in Rome in late July, which failed to produce an agreement on ending the war. Canada joined the United States and the UK in insisting that a durable settlement had to precede a cease-fire, while moderate European and Arab states maintained that the fighting had to end first. Harper said Canada would not participate in a possible peacekeeping force, adding that its purpose should be to drive out terrorists, a task best performed by soldiers from nearby states.64 He would ask Israel and the UN for an explanation after Israeli forces bombed a UN observer post in southern Lebanon, killing a Canadian officer and three other soldiers serving with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. But Harper appeared to blame the UN for putting the soldiers at risk. A Canadian Forces board of inquiry later held Israel's military responsible for the deaths, which it called "tragic and preventable."65

Canadian supporters lined up behind Israel's war effort. In late July, 8000 attended a "Stand with Israel" rally in Toronto organized by Jewish groups. The event's master of ceremonies, film producer Robert Lantos, thanked Harper for his "unequivocal support," and announced that he was giving up his membership in the Liberal party. Another participant, Israel's consul general in Toronto, called the gathering a significant endorsement.66 Charles McVety, who had been the principal speaker representing the Christian right at the rally, called on Christians "to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Jewish friends in their hour of need."67 In his capacity as chair of Christians United for Israel-Canada, he joined B'nai Brith's Frank Dimant and Ambassador Baker in designating August 20 as a "National Day of Prayer for Israel and the Peace of Jerusalem."68

Conservative party officials sought to capitalize on Harper's stand, asking supporters for "a special contribution of $150 or $75" in order "to keep the focus on principle and character and Canada's return to its place in the world." The Liberal and New Democratic Party opposition denounced the government for seeking to profit from the crisis. Arab Canadian groups were also outraged. But Jewish groups were not opposed. "The Liberal party has been a great beneficiary of Jewish largesse," said Dimant. "Harper has taken a principled stand and I think that, in the next election, Canadians will respond accordingly."69

Exploiting Liberal Divisions

Harper's stance put pressure on the Liberal Party, then in the midst of a campaign to choose a successor to former leader Paul Martin, to declare its position. With members split between those supporting Israel and those favoring Canada's traditional peacekeeping role in the region, interim leader Bill Graham tried to steer a middle course. Reiterating the party's friendship with Israel, he argued that the government needed to maintain its capacity "to act as an appropriate intermediary," for only in this way could it "truly help our friends."70

The public, too, believed the government had abandoned Canada's traditional approach. A new poll reported that 45 percent of Canadians, including 61 percent in Quebec, disagreed with Harper's support for Israel's actions, while only 32 percent agreed. Seventy-seven percent wanted Canada to take a neutral position.71 Saying he was "not concerned with opinion polls," Harper refused "to be drawn into a moral equivalence between a pyromaniac and a fireman." Ambassador Baker weighed in calling Ottawa's stand "completely consistent with Canada's values of supporting the right of a sovereign state to act in self-defense against a terrorist organization that is part of the world Islamic jihadist attempt to destroy the state of Israel." Setting diplomatic propriety aside, he called Graham's statement "a continuation of the non-committal and un-useful position that was held by the previous Canadian government, which neither helped advance peace or prevented terrorism." Jewish groups also applauded Harper. "We are enormously appreciative of the support that the government has extended to Israel," said Shimon Fogel of the Canada-Israel Committee. This, he added, could help pry Jewish votes from the Liberals in the next election.72

The Conservatives received another boost during their national caucus meeting in Cornwall, Ontario in early August. Gerald Schwartz, Heather Reisman and six other prominent members of the Jewish community, several of whom had been active in the Liberal party, took out an advertisement in a local newspaper praising Harper for "standing by" Israel.73 Frank Dimant called it a "very loud wake-up call" for the Liberals. "If Mr. Harper stays the course…I think this will end up being a long-term commitment [to the Conservatives] by these people." Reisman, a life-long Liberal, joined the party shortly thereafter.74

Dismissing the complaints of protesters outside the meeting as "very predictable," Harper said "There are a lot of long-term strategic interests of this country and of the world at stake here and that's why we're taking the positions that we're taking." However, he took a softer line in remarks in French directed at Quebeckers, most of whom remained opposed, saying, "We have a completely different situation from three weeks ago…. We have a full-blown conflict, almost a war, and it's hard to say whether a response is proportional to another."75 Still, Lebanese Canadian groups in sensitive electoral battlegrounds in Quebec and Ontario vowed to campaign against the Conservatives in the next election.76

On August 8, two days after 15,000 demonstrated against his government's policy in Montreal, Harper tried to assuage the dissenters, taking the unusual step of appointing Wajid Khan, a Liberal MP for the Toronto area riding of Mississauga- Streetsville and a native of Pakistan, as his special advisor on South Asia and the Middle East. Khan's assignment was to visit the Middle East and report on Canada's policy involvement.77 The Conservatives had tried to persuade other ethnic Liberal MPs to join the party, but Khan would not have to do so. Jason Kenney, then Harper's parliamentary secretary responsible for ethnic outreach, called the initiative an attempt to "to reach out past partisan concerns."78

Khan would not say where he stood on Middle East matters, claiming he had an open mind. He also denied that he would become a Conservative, insisting his appointment was "a supra-partisan issue."79 But Arab Canadian groups were skeptical. Mazen Chouaib, executive director of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations (NCCAR), said "We don't want to see this [becoming] another public relations stunt. The government has to deal with real issues and substantive issues."80

Khan's appointment aggravated the split within Liberal ranks. Fellow MPs forced Khan to resign as assistant defense critic and to withdraw from caucus. The divisions deepened when Senator Jerry Grafstein called on the party to put its support firmly behind Israel. MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who had been a member of a parliamentary delegation invited to visit Lebanon by NCCAR, suggested Canada find a way to communicate with Hezbollah. Seizing the opportunity to exploit the Liberals' differences, Kenney declared there should be no discussions with Hezbollah, which he likened to the Nazis. Bill Graham affirmed the party considered Hezbollah a terrorist group "that should be treated as such under all applicable Canadian laws," but MPs were entitled to their views. Still, Wrzesnewskyj was forced to resign his associate defense critic post.81

Controversy continued to follow the hapless Liberals. Leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff, who had said he was "not losing sleep" over an Israeli bomb attack that killed 29 Lebanese civilians in the village of Qana, reversed himself. In an interview on a popular Quebec television talk show in early October, he described the attack as a "war crime." Widely seen as an attempt to regain lost support in Quebec, his comment was sharply criticized by Jewish organizations.82 Harper also pounced on the gaffe, accusing "virtually all" of the leadership contenders of harboring "anti-Israeli" views. B'nai Brith and other Jewish groups urged Graham to denounce Ignatieff's remark and to ensure that "anti-Israeli rhetoric" did not become part of the leadership contest. But they were silent on the prime minister's characterization of the Liberal candidates.83

The Toronto Globe and Mail editorialized that the comment was "illustrative of an unbecoming hyper-partisanship that Mr. Harper carries around like a chip on his shoulder." But columnist John Ivison pointed out that Harper hoped to gain a "tactical advantage" with his attack. "The Conservatives are becoming the logical political option for many in the influential Jewish community because of Harper's steadfast support for Israel," he observed. In mid-October the prime minister would speak at B'nai Brith's annual dinner with sponsorship packages available for $1 million "and, by all accounts, people are lining up to offer him their thanks."84

Confirming Ivison's judgment, Frank Dimant said, "I don't predict an ovation. I predict several ovations…. There is certainly a groundswell of support today in the Jewish community for the Conservative Party."85 Harper did not disappoint. Fresh from preventing passage of a resolution acknowledging only Lebanese suffering in the Lebanon war at a meeting of la Francophonie, he made no apologies for his stand. "When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot, and will not be neutral," Harper said, "those who seek to destroy the Jews, will, for the same reason, ultimately seek to destroy us all."86 The reaction was all he could have hoped for. "Every Shabbat, every Saturday, we recite [a] prayer for you, Mr. Prime Minister," said Dimant. "I believe that the Almighty has answered our prayers.87

Some observers believed that opposition to Harper's foreign policy, especially among Quebeckers, contributed to his party's failure to improve its popularity. A new survey put the Conservatives in a virtual tie with the leaderless Liberals and pointed to a steady decline in support in Quebec. Another poll reported that although more Canadians approved than disapproved of the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon, 40 percent disagreed with the government's approach to the war, while only 29 percent agreed. Fifty-five percent of francophones disapproved of Ottawa's handling of the issue.88

Canada's pro-Israel tilt at the UN became more pronounced when the government abstained on three more General Assembly resolutions dealing with Palestinian peoples' right to self-determination, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and Israel's exploitation of natural resources on "occupied Arab lands," which its predecessor had supported.89 Harper admitted that diplomacy was the only way to achieve peace, but his government would not deal with Hamas or Hezbollah "whose objectives are ultimately genocidal." Despite this, Ottawa could serve as an interlocutor. "My own assessment of Canada's role in the Middle East in the past decade or so is we have been completely absent," he asserted. "I don't see any evidence we were playing any role." The government was looking for ways to encourage dialogue with the Palestinian Authority through President Abbas.90

Searching for a Role?

In January 2007, Peter MacKay visited the Middle East seeking to build on Ottawa's role as chair of the Refugee Working Group of the Middle East Peace Process, to "find a niche where Canada can make a contribution."91 MacKay met with Abbas, who encouraged Canada to help resolve the future of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. But a senior aide to the president charged that the decision to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority and refusal to meet with Hamas officials had diminished Canada's influence in the region. MacKay also met with Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, whose view of a two-state solution would not give refugees the right to return. MacKay appeared to agree, although his officials said Canada's policy was that the issue should be settled by negotiation.92

MacKay was mildly critical of Israel's security fence but reaffirmed that Canada stood "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Israel. Israel's foreign ministry praised Harper's government for maintaining "particularly warm relations," and noted that "bilateral and diplomatic ties are currently at their peak."93 However, as columnist James Travers saw it, MacKay's visit confirmed that the Palestinians were "losing interest in what this country has to say," and that the Israelis had "heard everything they need to know."94

Meanwhile, to no one's surprise, Harper's Middle East advisor, Wajid Khan, left the Liberals and became a Conservative. Harper blamed the party's new leader, Stéphane Dion, for forcing Khan to choose between his roles as a Liberal MP and prime ministerial advisor. But Harper had facilitated Khan's move by appointing his Conservative opponent in the 2006 election to a citizenship court position.95 Harper hailed the defection as a sign that minority voters were becoming more receptive to the Conservatives. "There's a place for everyone within the new Conservative Party of Canada," he boasted. "The news is getting out and the party is continuing to grow."96

However, the government refused to release Khan's report as Khan undertook to do when he was appointed. Its claim that Khan's advice would become less valuable if it were made public led to speculation that the document did not exist or that it ran counter to government policy.97 The rebuff increased Arab and Muslim Canadian skepticism about Ottawa's intentions. "We are now suspicious that this whole thing was a charade," said Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation. "Wajid Khan is not a professor of political science," the Canadian Islamic Congress's Mohamed Elmasry asserted, "and his knowledge of the Middle East is very limited. He's a member of Parliament and he so happens to be a Muslim, and he does not represent the Muslim viewpoint." The Canadian Muslim Forum and the Muslim Canadian Congress also called on the government to produce the report.98

In June, Hamas fighters attacked Fatah security forces and took control of Gaza, leading President Abbas to appoint an emergency government from which Hamas was excluded. Israel responded by imposing an escalating blockade of Gaza. King Abdullah of Jordan visited Ottawa the following month to encourage support for the new government and a renewed Arab league peace initiative. Harper said the government was committed to peace. But it was only after the United States and the European Union resumed their aid that Harper agreed to do so. The Canada-Israel Committee, which had opposed restoration of the funding, said the action would not "undercut the appreciation the pro-Israel community has for the Harper government."99

More evidence of Harper's attempts to strengthen ties to Jewish voters surfaced in the fall of 2007 when Canada's privacy commissioner began a "preliminary enquiry" into reports that the Conservatives had compiled a mailing list of Jewish voters. It followed complaints from some recipients of personalized Rosh Hashanah greeting cards from the prime minister. Jason Kenney defended the initiative as part of the government's commitment to multiculturalism. B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress approved. Calling it a first, Frank Dimant hoped "it's a tradition that prime ministers down the line will carry on."100

More of the Same

In November, the United States launched another Middle East peace initiative at a conference attended by forty countries, including Canada. The meeting failed to produce agreement on the so-called "core issues" of borders, settlements, the status of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian right of return. But Israel and the Palestinian Authority made a best-efforts commitment to reach a deal by the end of 2008. Responding to Prime Minister Olmert's request, Harper agreed to contribute $300 million over five years to further Palestinian security, governance and development. But the aid would be contingent on "demonstrable progress in negotiations by both sides, as well as progress in Palestinian democratic reforms." Ottawa would ensure that it did not go to "Hamas or other terrorist groups."101

In January 2008, during a follow-up visit to the Middle East by Maxime Bernier, the new foreign affairs minister, Olmert's government announced the expansion of existing settlements in East Jerusalem. Although Canada opposed "any new growth of settlements," Bernier did not say whether this included expansion of existing ones. His officials called the expansion "extremely unhelpful" but added that individual settlements would be dealt with in negotiations over the final status of territories held by Israel, leading observers to speculate that Ottawa had shifted its position.102

In March, Bernier expressed concern over an Israeli military assault on Gaza, which killed 120 Palestinians, in retaliation for rocket attacks on cities in Israel by Hamas militants. Bernier's comments were criticized by Israel's vocal ambassador, Alan Baker, and the Canada-Israel Committee. However, Canada was the only member of the UN Human Rights Council to oppose a resolution accusing Israel of war crimes in its attack on Gaza.103 The action followed Ottawa's decision to lead the way in withdrawing from the second UN World Conference Against Racism, to be held in Durban, South Africa (later moved to Geneva) in 2009. The government argued that the conference would provide a platform for opponents to resume attacks on Israel begun at the first conference seven years earlier. "We're very happy that we see things in a similar way," said an Israeli official, "Canada has adopted several times in recent months very brave positions."104 In another sign of their deepening relationship, the two countries signed a "declaration of intent" to deal with "common threats" to national security.105

But relations with Israel continued to provoke controversy. In May, Ambassador Baker expressed alarm that the growing Muslim population could produce a shift in Canada's policy. Singling out a Liberal MP, Omar Alghabra, who he claimed, "had been outspoken in his hostility toward Israel," (though he offered no evidence) Baker suggested "that the type of political influence that we're seeing in Britain, in France, might ultimately reach the Canadian political system." Public safety minister Stockwell Day gently chided the ambassador for his intrusion into domestic politics, saying "we are proud of the fact that we are made up and built from people from all countries, including the Jewish people." But Harper appeared to agree with Baker, charging that "some members of Parliament" were willing to pander to "anti-Israeli sentiment," which he described as "a thinly disguised veil for good old-fashioned anti-Semitism."106 In his address to a dinner marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, Harper assured the audience of his government's "unshakable support."107

Harper tried to balance his stance by praising "the moderate but theologically isolated Ahmadiyya Muslims" at the opening of their new mosque in Calgary, Alberta in July. A party source claimed the overture, similar to those made to Ismaili Muslims, was aimed at the wider Muslim audience. "It's an important signal the prime minister is sending, not just to militant Islamists abroad, but to their sympathizers here at home, that he's perfectly prepared to ignore them and side with persecuted minorities within the faith." Harper's comments provoked predictable criticism from the Arab and Muslim communities. "As a prime minister I can remind people of the danger of extremism in religion or ideology, but you don't try to describe one Islam as better than another," said a spokesman for the Canadian Arab Federation. The Canadian Islamic Congress's Mohamed Elmasry contended that Harper needed to improve his understanding of Muslim issues "instead of relying on overnight experts supplying him with one or two pages [of information]."108 But Harper's remarks were consistent with his strategy of "digging deep into a few select social strata," rather than seeking broad support, in order to enhance his party's electoral prospects.109

Conclusion

Opinion polls conducted as late as August 2008 suggested the Conservatives and Liberals remained about where they stood at the time of the 2006 election.110 But there were signs that Harper's strategy had begun to have an effect. For example, long-standing Jewish support for the Liberals in the Montreal riding of Outremont collapsed in a by-election in September 2007. Jews, who make up 10 percent of the constituency's electors, voted Conservative or stayed away, contributing to the victory of the New Democratic Party candidate. The Liberal standard bearer finished a distant second.111

In another by-election in March 2008, in the British Columbia constituency of Vancouver Quadra where the Liberals had piled up impressive wins in recent years, the Liberal candidate's margin of victory was reduced to 151 votes over the runner-up Conservative. "We have worked aggressively to court the Jewish community there," said a party strategist. Actions included a meeting between Harper and Jewish representatives a week before the vote. "People are now trying to determine if that influenced the numbers," the official said. "This all goes back to the government's strong support of Israel in 2006."112

The big test came in the October 2008 election in which the Conservatives portrayed themselves "as the only party with a staunchly pro-Israel record."113 In a major speech in the Toronto riding of Eglinton-Lawrence, home to the fourth largest Jewish community in Canada, Harper reminded his audience of the government's support for Israel in the Lebanon war and its veto of the Francophone summit resolution acknowledging only the suffering of Lebanese civilians. He also accused opposition MPs of "marching in the streets beside the flag of Hezbollah" at the August 2006 rally in Montreal opposing the government's policy toward the war.114 The Conservatives promised to continue to work closely with Israel on economic and security issues, and reaffirmed that a Harper-led government would not participate in the UN's forthcoming anti-racism conference. They committed to fund a $3 million pilot Security Infrastructure Project to increase safety at places of worship, schools and other community centers for Jewish and other ethnic groups at risk of hate crimes.115

Harper's government was returned to power with 143 seats, short of the 155 it needed to attain majority status.116 Early assessments suggested that the party's ethnic outreach strategy had started to pay dividends. Although the Liberals took 48 of the 80 constituencies with ethnic minorities larger than 20 percent, the Conservatives increased their total to eighteen, six more than in 2006, and boosted their vote in others.117 The party lost ground in Vancouver and Winnipeg constituencies with a substantial Jewish population. It also failed to win in Montreal and Toronto, which together account for more than forty seats. However, it improved its share of the vote, in some cases dramatically, in ridings in both cities where large numbers of Jewish electors reside.118 In the test case riding of Thornhill they helped the Conservative candidate defeat the Liberal incumbent by slightly more than the 5,000 additional votes the party's ethnic outreach team estimated it would take to win. Liberal turned Conservative MP, Wajid Khan, though, was soundly defeated by his Liberal opponent, despite several visits by Harper.119

Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress calls the Conservatives' electoral strategy normal political activity. "I see both a positive outreach to communities and I see politics at play, which is not a bad thing."120 Polling firm executive Paul Adams adds, "This is a game of inches in a minority [government] situation. The Jewish community is not a large demographic, but it tends to be concentrated in a small number of seats… It looks like an ethnic group that could be separated from the Liberals."

At times, Harper's party has gone to questionable lengths to do so. In November 2009, it targeted six Liberal constituencies containing large Jewish minorities (three in Montreal, two in Toronto, one in Winnipeg) with taxpayer- funded flyers claiming the Liberals had "opposed defunding Hamas and asked that Hezbollah be delisted as a terrorist organization," that Jean Chrétien's government had "willingly participated" in the "overtly antiSemitic" first World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001, and that Michael Ignatieff, the Liberals' current leader, had "accused Israel of committing war crimes." As Sheldon Gordon notes, "Only the last charge was incontestably accurate and free of distortion."121 Privileging one set of interests over others to enhance its electoral prospects, moreover, does nothing to further the government's professed goal of multiculturalism.

Likewise, good electoral politics does not necessarily lead to good foreign policy. As James Travers puts it, "Seeing the planet through a provincial prism encourages certainty over caution and, as a glance towards the Middle East confirms, is often catastrophic…. In exercising his foreign policy prerogatives, Harper [has] repositioned the country from being a small part of an elusive solution to the centre of an entrenched problem."122

Former prime minister Joe Clark agrees. In a speech in 2007, he argued that the Harper government had abandoned Canada's traditional "constructive role" in the Middle East. He took issue with Harper's claim that Canada had absented itself from the region during the previous decade, saying, "Apart from being flatly false, that rebuke is even more unsettling as either a warning shot, or an unguarded statement of belief, by the prime minister who so dominates this government." Harper should admit his mistake as Clark himself had to do on "one celebrated occasion."

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments had tried to be a "reliable interlocutor," between Israel and its Arab neighbors. "Not many other countries have that reputation."123 Harper was unmoved, telling the CIJA that a "battle between a democratic state and terrorist groups who seek to destroy it and its people is not a matter of shades of grey, it is a matter of right and wrong."124

However, Israel has sometimes shown more flexibility than its Canadian backer, creating opportunities for states with more balanced perspectives to perform a facilitating role. For example, in May 2008, months of indirect talks between Israel and Hamas brokered by Egypt culminated in a six-month cease-fire in Gaza and a temporary end to Israel's blockade. The following month, with Germany serving as mediator, Israel and Hezbollah agreed to exchange prisoners and the remains of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture helped ignite the 2006 Lebanon war. Turkey was also instrumental in helping Israel and Syria begin indirect negotiations aimed at achieving an overall peace settlement.125

Although Canada is not a major player in Middle East politics, it can encourage constructive solutions to the region's problems. It can also provide expertise, as it has done elsewhere, in such areas as governance, federalism, judicial reform, economic development, border control and enforcement, and the training of security forces. But this will not happen as long as electoral politics dominates the Harper government's foreign policy thinking.

Notes

I would like to thank Tom Flanagan, Paul Heinbecker, Tareq Ismael, Anthony Sayers, Denis Stairs, David Stewart and Livianna Tossutti for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation is mine. An extended version will appear in Tareq Y. Ismael, Canadian Foreign Policy and the Middle East: Continuity and Change (forthcoming).

1. Tom Flanagan, "Thou shalt not lean too far to the right," Globe and Mail, September 22, 2007.
2. Michelle Collins, "How the Jewish Vote Swung from Red to Blue," Embassy, February 11, 2009. http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2009/02/11/how-the-jewish-vote-swung-from-red-to-blue/37244
3. Flanagan, "Thou shalt not lean too far to the right."
4. Marci McDonald, "Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons," The Walrus, 3:8, (October 2006), 50-51 http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-religion-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/. For the text of the speech see Christian Coalition International (Canada), Stephen Harper, "Rediscovering the Right Agenda," June 2003 www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html (11/6/2007).
5. The Conservatives won 124 seats (receiving 36.3% of the popular vote) in the 308 seat parliament, followed by the Liberals with 103 (30.3%), the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) with 54 (10.5%), and the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 29 (17.5%). One Independent was elected. Three Liberal members subsequently joined the Conservatives. According to an Ipsos Reid election day poll, 52% of Jewish electors voted Liberal, 25.5% Conservative, and 15.2% NDP. Muslim voters voted 48.6% in favor of the Liberals, 15.5% for the Conservatives, and 28.2% for the NDP. Overall, 50.4% of non-Christian voters supported the Liberals, 23.6% the Conservatives, and 19.8% the New Democrats. Barry Kay, "The Denominational Vote: Non-Christians," September 17, 2008, www.wlu.ca/lispop/fedblog/?p=67 (9/23/2008).
6. Tom Flanagan, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2007), 280. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40204376
7. Don Martin, "Tories campaign on ethnic outreach," National Post, February 19, 2008. http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=522a6723-00ee-4796-aaac-4456cd0b6d4d&k=72618
8. Flanagan, Harper's Team, 281.
9. Quoted in Daniel Leblanc, "Tories target specific ethnic voters," Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007; "Anatomy of a Conservative Strategy," Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007.
10. Brent E. Sasley and Tami Amanda Jacoby, "Canada's Jewish and Arab Communities and Canadian Foreign Policy," in Paul Heinbecker and Bessma Momani, eds., Canada and the Middle East in Theory and Practice (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2007), 197.
11. Daniel Leblanc, "Tories target specific ethnic voters," Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007; "Anatomy of a Conservative strategy," Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007; Daniel Leblanc, "Responses to tactics range from outrage to shrugs," Globe and Mail, October 17, 2007; Marci McDonald, The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2010), 38. In Ontario the boundaries of federal and provincial electoral districts are identical. During the 2007 provincial election, Progressive Conservative party leader John Tory promised that a government led by him would extend education funding beyond the province's public and Roman Catholic schools to other faith-based systems. Tory was forced to withdraw his pledge in the face of public opposition, although it was welcomed by Thornhill's ethnic populations. Premier Dalton McGinty's Liberal government was returned to power. But the Progressive Conservatives won the Thornhill seat, which had been held by the Liberals.
12. "Anatomy of a Conservative strategy," and Sasley and Jacoby, "Canada's Jewish and Arab Communities," 198. Sami Aoun argues that this extends to the issue of Palestine, which because of its "complexity makes objectivity within the Arab and Muslim community in Canada difficult. The resulting differences of opinion have prevented a unified pro-Palestinian position that would help further the Palestinian cause with respect to Canadian foreign policy." "Muslim Communities: The Pitfalls of Decision-Making in Canadian Foreign Policy," in David Carment and David Bercuson, eds., The World in Canada: Diaspora, Demography, and Domestic Politics (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008), 118. On Arab Canadian lobbying efforts see Liat Radcliffe Ross, "Canadian Muslims and Foreign Policy," International Journal, LXIII:1 (Winter 2007-08), 187-205.
13. Tom Flanagan, personal communication. Mearscheimer and Walt observe that Jews, including Frum and Krauthammer, "compose the core of the neoconservative movement," in the United States. Neoconservatives support "spreading democracy and preserving U.S. dominance [as] the best route to long-term peace," are "skeptical of international institutions," and "believe that military force is an extremely useful tool for shaping the world in ways that will benefit America." Their agenda includes "vigorous support for Israel and a tendency to favor its more hard-line elements." John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Toronto: Viking Canada, 2007), 132, 129, 132.
14. Quoted in Stacey Stein, "Harper criticizes Liberals on Israel," Canadian Jewish News, January 30, 2003. Harper has said little about his religious convictions. Raised in the United Church, he sometimes attends Ottawa's East Gate Alliance Church, which belongs to the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance. In 2005, Harper told an interviewer, "I won't say I always keep my faith and my politics separate, but I don't mix my advocacy of a political position with my advocacy of faith." Quoted in McDonald, "Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons," 49.
15. Lloyd Mackey, Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (Toronto: ECW Press, 2006), 92.
16. Quoted in Brian Laghi, "It's a marriage of principle and politics," Globe and Mail, July 18, 2006.
17. Quoted in Leslie Scrivener, "Jewish Liberals a Hezbollah casualty?" Toronto Star, August 20, 2006. See Father Raymond J. De Souza, "The Christian case for supporting Israel," National Post, May 8, 2008.
18. Not all of these MPs would identify themselves as evangelical Christians. However, they tend to fall within David Bebbington's classic definition of evangelicalism, based on a belief in biblicism (biblical authority), crucicentrism (the redemptive role of Christ on the cross), conversionism (the conversion of non-Christians), and activism (a commitment to spreading the Christian message). They may be members or followers of evangelical or conservative Protestant or Catholic churches, attending on a regular or periodic basis. Their activities may include participation in prayer breakfasts or faith-based study or advocacy groups. Lloyd Mackey, personal communication.
19. Harold M. Waller, "Organized Canadian Jewry: 'CJC's glory days are long past," Canadian Jewish News, March 15, 2007.
20. Harold M. Waller, "The evolution of Canadian Jewish advocacy: CIJA shifts the focus," Canadian Jewish News, March 22, 2007.
21. Ibid. The group included Gerald Schwartz, CEO, Onex Corporation; Schwartz's wife Heather Reisman, CEO, Indigo Books and Music Inc.; Brent Belzberg, owner of Torquest Partners; Larry Tannenbaum, chairman, Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment; Stephen Cummings, CEO, Maxwell Cummings; Stephen Reitman, executive vice-president, Reitmans (Canada) Ltd.; Israel Asper, CEO, CanWest Global; Sylvain Abitbol, CEO of NHC Communications; Senator Leo Kolber, a former director of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Seagram's and Loews Cineplex; and philanthropist Julia Koschitzky. See David Noble, "The New Israel Lobby in Action," Canadian Dimension (November-December 2005), and Dan Freeman-Maloy, "AIPAC North: Israel Advocacy in Canada," ZNet, June 26, 2006, www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10486 (12/20/2007).
22. The Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, www.cija.ca/eng/home.htm (7/11/2008); Waller, "The evolution of Canadian Jewish Advocacy"; McDonald, The Armageddon Factor, 318-321.
23. Jeff Sallot, "Neutrality on Mideast favoured, polls found," Globe and Mail, November 12, 2004; Jeffrey Simpson, "Canadians don't share Ottawa's pro-Israel tilt," Globe and Mail, February 1, 2005.
24. Waller, "The evolution of Canadian Jewish Advocacy."
25. The author of the strategy is B'nai Brith's Frank Dimant, who has close ties to Charles McVety of the Canada Christian College. In 2004, the college awarded Dimant an honorary doctorate. Four years later he was appointed inaugural chair of its new Department of Israel Studies. Another important figure is Joseph Ben-Ami. In 2002, after serving on the staff of Stockwell Day, Ben-Ami joined B'nai Brith first as director of communications and later as director of government relations and diplomatic affairs. In 2005, he left B'nai Brith to become executive director of McVety's Institute of Canadian Values. Three years later, Ben-Ami established the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, his own conservative think tank. See Stephen Scheinberg, "Partners for Imperium: B'nai Brith Canada and the Christian Right," Canadian Jewish Outlook (July-August 2008), 5-8, 37-39; McDonald, The Armageddon Factor, 318-323.
26. Paul Lungen, "Evangelical Christian leaders head to Israel," Canadian Jewish News, March 13, 2003; Paul Lungen, "Evangelical Christians planning next mission," Canadian Jewish News, March 27, 2003. Christian Zionists are a subset of opinion within the evangelical community. They "tend to hold more rigid views on policy matters related to Israel than mainstream evangelicals," although Canadian members are inclined "to be more moderate" than their US counterparts. While Israel and many pro-Israeli groups cultivate the support of Christian Zionists, their views cause unease in some quarters. Robert McMahon, "Christian Evangelicals and U.S. Foreign Policy," www.cfr.org/publication/11341 (27/3/08) and Douglas Todd, "'Christian Zionist' beliefs cause unease among Jews," Vancouver Sun, August 25, 2007. See also Mearscheimer and Waltz, The Israel Lobby, 132-139.
27. Etgar Lefkovits, "Canadian government forming pro-Israel lobby," Jerusalem Post, February 4, 2007, www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359780973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull (11/5/2007); Knesset Christian Allies Caucus, www.cac.org.il (11/22/2007).
28. Janice Arnold, "Christians must stand with Israel, evangelical leader says," Canadian Jewish News, July 12, 2007; Lloyd Mackey, "Israeli politicians court Canadian evangelicals," canadi- anchristianity.com, www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/070215israel (3/6/2008); McDonald, The Armageddon Factor, 332-333.
29. Scrivener, "Jewish Liberals a Hezbollah casualty?"
30. Charles Flicker, "Next Year in Jerusalem," International Journal, LVIII:1 (Winter 2002-03), 115-138; Jeffrey Simpson, Discipline of Power: The Conservative Interlude and the Liberal Restoration (Toronto: Personal Library, Publishers, 1980), 153.
31. Flicker, "Next Year in Jerusalem," 137.
32. David H. Goldberg, "The Post-Statehood Relationship: A Growing Friendship," in Ruth Klein and Frank Dimant, eds., From Immigration to Integration, The Canadian Jewish Experience: A Millennium Edition (Toronto: Malcolm Lester, 2001), 141.
33. Michael Bell, Michael Malloy, and Sallama Shaker, "Practitioners' Perspectives on Canada-Middle East Relations," in Heinbecker and Momani, eds., Canada and the Middle East, 12.
34. Goldberg, "The Post-Statehood Relationship," 143.
35. John Ibbitson, "In case you missed it, our Mideast policy has shifted," Globe and Mail, December 3, 2004.
36. Goldberg, "The Post-Statehood Relationship," 143; Scrivener, "Jewish Liberals a Hezbollah casualty?"
37. They were: Montreal MP Irwin Cotler (justice), Vancouver's Stephen Owen (public works and government services), Toronto area members Joe Volpe (human resources), Carolyn Bennett (public health), Jim Peterson (international trade), and Vancouver senator Jack Austin (government leader in the Senate). Pat Johnson, "Israel supporters in cabinet," Jewish Independent, January 9, 2004.
38. Paul Lungen, "Canada shifts vote on UN resolution," Canadian Jewish News, March 16, 2006. The criteria, whether the resolution singled out Israel, used excessive language, and offered a balanced treatment of the issue, of course, leave considerable room for discretion in making such decisions.
39. Ibbitson, "In case you missed it, our Mideast policy has shifted"; John Ibbitson, "Is Canada preparing to shift line in the sand?" Globe and Mail, October 21, 2004; Ron Csillag, "Liberal MPs work to change Canada's UN votes on Israel," Canadian Jewish News, October 28, 2004; Scrivener, "Jewish Liberals a Hezbollah casualty?" Private contributions, once the mainstay of party financing in Canada, are now strictly limited as a result of the Federal Accountability Act, passed by parliament in 2007. The act bans corporate and union donations to political parties and party leadership candidates, and restricts individual contributions to $1,000 per year.
40. Campbell Clark, "Pro-Israel shift at UN keeps balance, MPs say," Globe and Mail, December 2, 2004; Paul Martin, Hell or High Water: My Life In and Out of Politics (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2008), 348-352.
41. Sean McCarthy, "Ottawa set to reject anti-Israeli resolutions," Globe and Mail, December 1, 2005.
42. Quoted in Ron Csillag, "No Jewish MPs in new government," Canadian Jewish News, February 2, 2006.
43. Anna Morgan, "Elections here and there pose a Mideast dilemma," Toronto Star, January 22, 2006.
44. Quoted in Jeff Sallot, "How Tories tripped over Hamas," Globe and Mail, March 9, 2006.
45. Canada, Office of the Prime Minister, "Statement by the Prime Minister on the situation in the Palestinian Authority," News Release, February 14, 2006.
46. Sallot, "How Tories tripped over Hamas."
47. Quoted in "Canada halts funding to Hamas-led PA," Canadian Jewish News, April 6, 2006; Paul Wells, Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2006), 294-295.
48. Quoted in CJN News Services, "Canada halts funding to Hamas-led PA," Canadian Jewish News, April 6, 2006.
49. Quoted in Diane Koven, "Cutting off Hamas 'a no-brainer,' ex-envoy Norm Spector says," Canadian Jewish News, April 27, 2006.
50. Diane Koven, "Prime Minister links Holocaust with current threats to Israel," Canadian Jewish News, May 4, 2006.
51. McDonald, The Armageddon Factor, 308-311.
52. Brian Laghi, "Discipline, control mark PM's management style," Globe and Mail, April 8, 2006; Jeff Sallot, "Canada vetoes key UN motion on refugees," Globe and Mail, March 11, 2006.
53. Quoted in Paul Lungen, "Canada shifts vote on UN resolution," Canadian Jewish News, March 16, 2006.
54. Quoted in Mark MacKinnon, "Lebanon invasion 'serious failure' Israeli panel says," Globe and Mail, January 31, 2008.
55. Quoted in Jane Taber, "Harper defends Israel's right to 'defend itself'," Globe and Mail, July 14, 2006.
56. Jane Taber, "PM brands Canada an 'energy super power'," Globe and Mail, July 15, 2006.
57. Peter Baker, "Overseas tensions force Bush to change direction," Washington Post, July 27, 2006; John Ibbitson, "Harper under the gun in first foreign-policy crisis," Globe and Mail, July 17, 2006.
58. G8 Summit 2006, "Middle East," News Release, July 16, 2006, http://en.g8russia.ru/docs/21.html (2/27/2008); Jane Taber and Graeme Smith, "G8 leaders urge Israel to exercise restraint," Globe and Mail, July 17, 2006.
59. Canadian Press, "Harper stance firm despite deaths," Toronto Star, July 17, 2006.
60. Quoted in Mike Blanchfield, "Harper nixes call for peacekeepers," National Post, July 18, 2006.
61. For an account of the evacuation see Graham Fraser and Tonda MacCharles, "Evacuation: the inside story," Toronto Star, July 21, 2006.
62. Mike De Souza, "Harper's evacuation efforts OK, poll finds," Calgary Herald, July 22, 2006.
63. Juliet O'Neil, "Public split on PM's Mideast stand," Calgary Herald, July 24, 2006.
64. Les Whittington, "No deal on truce at Rome meeting," Toronto Star, July 27, 2006; Allison Hanes, "No peace in Mideast with Hezbollah: PM," National Post, July 26, 2006.
65. CBC News, "Deaths of Canadian officer, UN observers preventable: board," February 1, 2008, www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/01/kruedener-inquiry.html (2/7/2008); Steven Edwards, "Bomb fallout rattles UN," National Post, July 27, 2006.
66. Quoted in Jessica Freiman, "8,000 rally for Israel in Toronto," Canadian Jewish News, August 3, 2006; CBC News, "Pro-Israel rally in Toronto draws thousands," July 27, 2006, www.cbc.ca.canada/toronto/story/2006/07/27/toronto-rally-israel.html (11/29/2007).
67. Institute for Canadian Values, "Christians cannot remain neutral," News Release, August 1, 2006, www.canadian values.ca/friendly.aspx?aid=203 (11/6/2007).
68. Christians United for Israel-Canada, "Christian and Jewish Leaders call for National Day of Prayer for Israel and the Peace of Jerusalem," News Release, August 9, 2006, www.cufi.ca/documents/0008.htm (11/6/2007); Marci McDonald, "Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons," 58.
69. Quoted in Linda Diebel, "Tories draw on Mideast crisis to raise money," Toronto Star, July 29, 2006; Bill Curry, "Tories seek donations to defend Ottawa's stand on Middle East," Globe and Mail, July 29, 2006.
70. Bill Graham, "Mr. Harper has squandered our historic role as Mideast bridge-builder," Globe and Mail, August 2, 2006, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060802.wcomment0802/BNStory/Front (8/3/2006).
71. Brian Laghi, "Only 32% back PM on Mideast," Globe and Mail, August 1, 2006.
72. Quoted in Paul Lungen, "Harper rejects moral equivalence between Israel and terrorists," Canadian Jewish News, August 3, 2006.
73. Quoted in Campbell Clark, "Liberal power couple back Harper on Mideast," Globe and Mail, August 4, 2006.
74. Quoted in Allison Hanes, "Jewish leaders see support shift from Grits," National Post, August 5, 2006.
75. Quoted in Mike De Souza, "Harper refuses to let polls dictate policy on Mideast," National Post, August 5, 2006, and Les Whittington, "Reaction to Mideast policy expected, PM," Toronto Star, August 5, 2006.
76. Christopher Guly, "Middle East crisis 'at the top' of Tory caucus agenda," Hill Times, August 7, 2006.
77. Canada, Office of the Prime Minister, "Prime Minister Harper announces Special Advisor on South Asia and the Middle East," News Release, August 8, 2006.
78. Quoted in Linda Diebel, "PM seeks advice—from a Liberal," Toronto Star, August 9, 2006.
79. Quoted in Campbell Clark, "PM picks Muslim Liberal MP as advisor on Mideast," Globe and Mail, August 9, 2006.
80. Quoted in CanWest News Service, "Arab-Canadian groups skeptical about Harper's Liberal advisor," National Post, August 11, 2006.
81. Quoted in Joel Kom, "Liberal under fire from own party over Hezbollah remarks," National Post, August 22, 2006; Jeff Sallot, "Hezbollah to stay on banned list," Globe and Mail, August 22, 2006; Ian Bailey, "Liberal resigns post over Mideast remarks," Calgary Herald, August 24, 2006.
82. Quoted in Sean Gordon, "War crime remark costs Ignatieff key aide," Toronto Star, October 12, 2006.
83. Quoted in Graeme Hamilton, "Leadership contenders anti-Israel, Harper says," National Post, October 13, 2006.
84. Editorial, "Ignatieff plays into his opponents' hands," Globe and Mail, October 13, 2006; John Ivison, "Ignatieff's judgment the real issue," National Post, October 13, 2006.
85. Quoted in Graeme Hamilton, "Jewish voters face 'moment of truth'," National Post, October 18, 2006.
86. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, "Speech to B'nai Brith at the Award of Merit Dinner," October 18, 2006; Daniel Leblanc, "PM blocks Lebanon resolution," Globe and Mail, September 30, 2006.
87. Quoted in Sheri Shefa, "PM stresses his support for Israel," Canadian Jewish News, October 26, 2006.
88. Brian Laghi, "Liberals, Tories in a dead heat," Globe and Mail, October 18, 2006; Innovation Research Group, "Foreign Policy Under a Conservative Government: An Interim Report Card," October 30, 2006, www.cdfai.org (10/11/2006).
89. Quoted in Steven Edwards, "Conservatives reversing Canada's position at UN," National Post, November 17, 2006; Steven Edwards, "Canada's UN stance shows tilt to Israel," Calgary Herald, December 1, 2006.
90. Quoted in Gloria Galloway, "Harper calls Hamas 'genocidal'," Globe and Mail, December 21, 2006.
91. Quoted in "Canada pursues 'niche' in restoring Middle East peace," Toronto Star, December 26, 2006.
92. Matthew Fisher, "Palestinians seek Canada's help," Calgary Herald, January 20, 2007; Mark MacKinnon, "MacKay meets Abbas, but there's no welcome mat," Globe and Mail, January 20, 2007; Carolynne Wheeler and Mark MacKinnon, "MacKay chides Israel's Livni over barrier," Globe and Mail, January 22, 2007; Josh Mitnick, "MacKay dodges questions on thorny refugee issue," Toronto Star, January 22, 2007.
93. Quoted in Matthew Fisher, "Canada, Israel united against Iranian threats: MacKay," Calgary Herald, January 23, 2007, and Mike Blanchfield, "Arabs, Muslims to mobilize against Tories," National Post, January 25, 2007.
94. James Travers, "MacKay's muddled mission," Toronto Star, January 23, 2007.
95. Campbell Clark, "Khan's Mideast report to remain under wraps, despite initial promise," Globe and Mail, January 8, 2007; Campbell Clark, "Khan assailed Harper before joining Tories," Globe and Mail, January 10, 2007.
96. Quoted in Allan Woods, "Harper says defections prove Tories appeal to ethnic voters," Toronto Star, January 12, 2007.
97. Campbell Clark, "Khan's Mideast report to remain under wraps despite initial promise," Globe and Mail, January 8, 2007; Sheri Shefa, "Withheld report on Middle East trip raises questions," Canadian Jewish News, January 25, 2007.
98. Quoted in Carolynne Wheeler and Alex Dobrota, "PM faces fresh furor over Khan 'charade'," Globe and Mail, January 16, 2007.
99. Quoted in Alan Freeman, "Ottawa restores aid to Palestinian Authority," Globe and Mail, July 24, 2007; Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf, "Harper mulling reinstatement of funding to Palestinian Authority," Canadian Jewish News, July 19, 2007.
100. Quoted in Daniel Leblanc, "Voters disturbed by PM's letters, Thornhill MP says," Globe and Mail, October 19, 2007, and Bruce Cheadle, "Jewish groups defend PM over holiday cards," Globe and Mail, October 13, 2007. The privacy commissioner concluded that there had been no breach of Canada's privacy legislation because political parties are not bound by most of its terms. However, the commissioner also began a broader study of political parties and privacy matters that will lead to recommendations on how personal information should be used. Michael Valpy, "Holiday wish both baffling and bothersome," Globe and Mail, September 10, 2008.
101. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, "Canada Supports Palestinian Reform and Development," News Release 179 and attached Backgrounder, December 17, 2007; Karin Laub, "Donors pledge billions to Palestinians," Globe and Mail, December 18, 2007.
102. Quoted in Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf, "Bernier, Olmert trade complements," Canadian Jewish News, January 17, 2008, and Oakland Ross, "Minister fails to answer policy question," Toronto Star, January 15, 2008.
103. Bal Brach and Glenn Johnson, "Ottawa cautions Israel on Gaza," National Post, March 3, 2008; Paul Lungen, "Canada 'concerned' over Israeli measures," Canadian Jewish News, March 6, 2008; Carolynne Wheeler, "Gaza ceasefire deal at hand, Abbas says," Globe and Mail, March 11, 2008; Oakland Ross, "Shifting towards Israel?" Toronto Star, March 17, 2008.
104. Quoted in Steven Edwards, "Canada's courage sets pace," National Post, February 25, 2008.
105. Quoted in Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf, "Canada, Israel sign security declaration," Canadian Jewish News, March 27, 2008.
106. Quoted in Campbell Clark, "Israeli envoy fears policy shift," Globe and Mail, May 8, 2008, Brian Laghi, "Canada's backing of Israel unshakeable, Harper says," Globe and Mail, May 9, 2008, and Tonda MacCharles, "Rae objects to Harper's 'smear'," Toronto Star, May 10, 2008.
107. Canada, Office of the Prime Minister, "Prime Minister's Speech for Israel's 60th Anniversary," 8 May 2008.
108. Quoted in Jeff Davis. "PM Stirs Debate by Cozying Up to Moderate Muslims," Embassy, July 9, 2008; Michelle Collins, "The Test: Ethnic Voters Could Make or Break Tories," Embassy, September 17, 2008.
109. James Travers, "Going negative big positive for Tories," Toronto Star, March 27, 2008.
110. Canwest News Service, "Conservative majority still out of reach, poll finds," Calgary Herald, August 2, 2008.
111. Janice Arnold, "Jewish shift to Tories in vote helped NDP, observers say," Canadian Jewish News, September 26, 2007.
112. Quoted in Jane Taber, "Where's Layton leaning? Toward hockey commentary," Globe and Mail, March 22, 2008.
113. Quoted in Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf and Janice Arnold, "Tories make inroads with Jewish voters," Canadian Jewish News, October 23, 2008.
114. Quoted in David Akin, Andrew Mayeda, Juliet O'Neill and Glenn Johnson, "Harper affirms Afghan pullout by 2011," Calgary Herald, September 11, 2008.
115. Levy-Ajzenkopf and Arnold, "Tories make inroads with Jewish voters."
116. The Conservatives won 143 seats (37.7 % of the popular vote), the Liberals 77 (26.3%), the BQ 49 (10%), the NDP 37 (18.25%), Independent candidates 2. The Green Party did not win any seats but garnered 1% of the vote.
117. Levy-Ajzenkopf and Arnold, "Tories make inroads with Jewish voters"; Marina Jiménez, "Tories see wins in ethnic ridings as proof Liberal lock on minorities is ending," Globe and Mail, October 27, 2008.
118. Levy-Ajzenkopf and Arnold, "Tories make inroads with Jewish voters"; Mike Cohen, "Tories building Jewish support," Jewish Tribune, 23 October 2008.
119. Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf, "Kent beats Kadis in Thornhill," Canadian Jewish News, October 23, 2008; Tess Kalinowski, "The wrath against Khan," Toronto Star, October 15, 2008. It is not clear whether the provincial education funding issue had an impact on the federal vote in Thornhill or elsewhere in Ontario.
120. Quoted in Leblanc, "Responses to tactics range from outrage to shrugs."
121. Sheldon Gordon, "Where have all of Canada's Jewish Liberals gone?" Haaretz.com, December 24, 2009, www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/where-have-all-of-canada-s-jewish-liberals-gone-1.1474?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.208%2C2.209%2C (6/18/2010). Describing the controversy over his comment as "the most painful experience of my short political career" and "an error," Ignatieff later apologized for his choice of words saying it might have been better to have said that Israel "may have failed to comply with the Geneva Convention of the laws of war," or that it "has the right to defend itself but had to avoid civilian casualties." Quoted in Linda Diebel, "Ignatieff apologizes for Israeli war crime comment," Toronto
Star, April 14, 2008.
122. James Travers, "Poke at mandarins misguided," Toronto Star, June 26, 2007.
123. Quoted in Janice Arnold, "Clark raps Harper government on Mideast," Canadian Jewish News, February 8, 2007. For a discussion of Canada's policy toward the region see Heinbecker and Momani, eds., Canada and the Middle East.
124. Quoted in Diane Koven, "Harper cheered at CIJA event," Canadian Jewish News, February 15, 2007.
125. Michelle Collins reports that although most observers agree that "the Conservative government has positioned itself strongly behind Israel… it is the way the PMO [Prime Minister's Office] so tightly controls its affairs with the Middle East—experts say more than any previous minister—that for many signals a distinct drift away from Canada's traditional foreign policy in the region. 'People in Ottawa run scared of the PMO on Middle East issues,' one source close to the government's Middle East policy process told Embassy, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. 'You see at CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency), you see it at DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade). People are worried about putting things forward in case of getting slapped down by the Prime Minister's Office for not being sufficiently inclined toward Israel, so there's a real chill cast over the federal bureaucracy on these kinds of issues now, over our ambassadors in the region, and so forth,' the source said." Michelle Collins, "Harper's Silence on Middle East Politically Calculated, Experts Say," Embassy, January 7, 2009.

Originally published in Arab Studies Quarterly Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals. Donald Barry is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.

continue reading source: http://www.truenorthperspective.com/Friday_27_July_2012/harper_dangerous_game


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World

God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World

Watch Walter Russell Mead, CFR’s Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow, discuss his newest book, God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMESKhOHCC4

SPEAKER: Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
PRESIDER: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/god-gold-britain-america-making-modern-world-video/p14458

Uploaded by cfr on May 3, 2011
ORIGINALLY RECORDED October 9, 2007
Category: Nonprofits & Activism
License: Standard YouTube License

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMESKhOHCC4

Part 2: The book review:

God and Gold: Mead Explores History of “Anglo-American Wasps” and “Waspophobes” in New Book

October 9, 2007— This provocative new book, God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World, by Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy, argues that the main event in modern history is the long war between the Anglo-American Wasps and their rivals. For more than 300 years, first the British and then the Americans, have been busy building a global system of politics, power, investment, and trade. The Waspophobes—those who hate and fear Anglo-American capitalism, liberalism, arrogance, religion, and power—keep fighting back.

From Oliver Cromwell to George W. Bush, Wasp leaders have described their enemies as an axis of evil who hate liberty and God, seek world domination, care nothing for morality, will do anything to win, and rely on a fifth column of traitors within.

Waspophobes, from Louis XIV on, thought pretty much the same things about the Wasps, but no matter who is right, for more than 300 years the Wasps have been winning. While they have lost small wars here and there, they have won big conflicts, the great power wars that shape the world. So far.

What are these conflicts about? Why do the Wasps keep on winning? Why, despite all their victories, do the Wasps never succeed in establishing the peaceful world they keep dreaming about? Why did Bush, Blair, and the neoconservatives fail so badly in the Middle East? What has Wasp power meant for world history, and where are the Wasps headed next?

Drawing on sources from Lewis Carroll and Monty Python to Osama bin Laden and Tony Blair, God and Gold weaves history, literature, philosophy, and religion together into a dazzling, vivid picture of the world we live in and our tumultuous times.

http://www.cfr.org/world/god-gold-mead-explores-history-anglo-american-wasps-waspophobes-new-book/p14783


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

The Imperial Bluster of Tom Delay – Dreams and Delusions

by Edward Said
August 20, 2003

During the last days of July, Representative Tom Delay (Republican) of Texas, the House majority leader and described routinely as one of the three or four most powerful men in Washington, delivered himself of his opinions regarding the roadmap and the future of peace in the Middle East. What he had to say was meant as an announcement for a trip he subsequently took to Israel and several Arab countries where, it is reported, he articulated the same message. In no uncertain terms, Delay declared himself opposed to the Bush Administration’s support for the roadmap, especially the provision in it for a Palestinian state. “It would be a terrorist state” he said emphatically, using the word “terrorist” as has become habitual in official American discourse without regard for circumstance, definition, or concrete characteristics. He went on to add that he came by his ideas concerning Israel by virtue of what he described as his convictions as a “Christian Zionist,” a phrase synonymous not only with support for everything Israel does, but also for the Jewish state’s theological right to go on doing what it does regardless whether or not a few million “terrorist” Palestinians get hurt in the process.

The sheer number of people in the southwestern United States who think like Delay is an imposing 60-70 million and, it should be noted, included among them is none other than George W. Bush, who is also an inspired born-again Christian for whom everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Bush is their leader and surely depends on their votes for the 2004 election which, in my opinion, he will not win. And because his presidency is threatened by his ruinous policies at home and abroad, he and his campaign strategists are trying to attract more Christian right-wingers from other parts of the country, the Middle West especially. Altogether then, the views of the Christian Right (allied with the ideas and lobbying power of the rabidly pro-Israeli neo-conservative movement) constitute a formidable force in domestic American politics, which is the domain where, alas, the debate about the Middle East takes place in America. One must always remember that in America, Palestine and Israel are regarded as local, not foreign policy, matters.

Thus, were Delay’s pronouncements simply to have been either the personal opinions of a religious enthusiast or the dreamlike ramblings of an inconsequential visionary, one could dismiss them quickly as nonsense. But in fact, they represent a language of power that is not easily opposed in America, where so many citizens believe themselves to be guided directly by God in what they see and believe, and sometimes do. John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, is reported to begin each working day in his office with a collective prayer meeting. Fine, people want to pray, they are constitutionally allowed total religious liberty. But in Delay’s case, by saying what he has said against an entire race of people, the Palestinians, that they would constitute a whole country of “terrorists,” that is, enemies of humankind in the current Washington definition of the word, he has seriously hampered their progress toward self-determination, and gone some way in imposing further punishment and suffering on them, all on religious grounds. By what right?

Consider the sheer inhumanity and imperialist arrogance of Delay’s position: from a powerful eminence ten thousand miles away, people like him, who are as ignorant about the actual life of Arab Palestinians as the man in the moon, can actually rule against and delay Palestinian freedom, and assure years more of oppression and suffering, just because he thinks they are all terrorists and because his own Christian Zionism–where neither proof nor reason counts for very much–tells him so. So, in addition to the Israeli lobby here, to say nothing of the Israeli government there, Palestinian men, women and children have to endure more obstacles and more roadblocks placed in their way in the US Congress. Just like that.

What also struck me about the Delay comments wasn’t only their irresponsibility and their easy, uncivilized (a word very much in use concerning the war against terrorism) dismissal of thousands of people who have done him no wrong whatever, but also the unreality, the delusional unreality his statements share with so much of official Washington so far as discussions of (and policy toward) the Middle East, the Arabs and Islam are concerned. This has reached new levels of intense, and even inane abstraction in the period since the events of September 11. Hyperbole, the technique of finding more and more excessive statements to describe and over-describe a situation, has ruled the public realm, beginning of course with Bush himself, whose metaphysical statements about good and evil, the axis of evil, the light of the almighty and his endless, dare I call them sickening effusions about the evils of terrorism, have taken language about human history and society to new, dysfunctional levels of pure, ungrounded polemic. All of this laced with solemn sermons and declarations to the rest of the world to be pragmatic, to avoid extremism, to be civilized and rational, even as US policy makers with untrammeled executive power can legislate the change of regime here, an invasion there, a “re-construction” of a country there, all from within the confines of their plush air-conditioned Washington offices. Is this a way of setting standards for civilized discussion and advancing democratic values, including the very idea of democracy itself?

One of the basic themes of all Orientalist discourse since the mid-19th century is that the Arabic language and the Arabs are afflicted with both a mentality and a language that has no use for reality. Many Arabs have come to believe this racist drivel, as if whole national languages like Arabic, Chinese, or English directly represent the minds of their users. This notion is part of the same ideological arsenal used in the 19th century to justify colonial oppression: “Negroes” can’t speak properly therefore, according to Thomas Carlyle, they must remain enslaved; “the Chinese” language is complicated and therefore, according to Ernest Renan, the Chinese man or woman is devious and should be kept down; and so on and so forth. No one takes such ideas seriously today, except for when Arabs, Arabic, and Arabists are concerned.

In a paper he wrote a few years ago, Francis Fukuyama, the right wing pontificator and philosopher who was briefly celebrated for his preposterous “end of history” idea, said that the State Department was well rid of its Arabists and Arabic speakers because by learning that language they also learned the “delusions” of the Arabs. Today, every village philosopher in the media, including pundits like Thomas Friedman, chatters on in the same vein, adding in their scientific descriptions of the Arabs that one of the many delusions of Arabic is the commonly held “myth” that the Arabs have of themselves as a people. According to such authorities as Friedman and Fouad Ajami, the Arabs are simply a loose collection of vagrants, tribes with flags, masquerading as a culture and a people. One might point out that that itself is a hallucinatory Orientalist delusion, which has the same status as the Zionist belief that Palestine was empty, and that the Palestinians were not there and certainly don’t count as a people. One scarcely needs to argue against the validity of such assumptions, so obviously do they derive from fear and ignorance.

But that is not all. Arabs are always being berated for their inability to deal with reality, to prefer rhetoric to facts, to wallow in self-pity and self-aggrandizing rather than in sober recitals of the truth. The new fashion is to refer to the UNDP Report of last year as an “objective” account of Arab self-indictment. Never mind that the Report, as I have pointed out, is a shallow and insufficiently reflective social science graduate student paper designed to prove that Arabs can tell the truth about themselves, and it is pretty far below the level of decades of Arab critical writing from the time of Ibn Khaldun to the present. All that is pushed aside, as is the imperial context which the UNDP authors blithely ignore, the better perhaps to prove that their thinking is in line with American pragmatism.

Other experts often say that, as a language, Arabic is imprecise and incapable of expressing anything with any real accuracy. In my opinions, such observations are so ideologically mischievous as not to require argument. But I think we can get an idea of what drives such opinions forward by looking for an instructive contrast at one of the great successes of American pragmatism and how it shows how our present leaders and authorities deal with reality in sober and realistic terms. I hope the irony of what I am discussing will quickly be evident. The example I have in mind is American planning for post-war Iraq. There is a chilling account of this in the August 4 issue of the Financial Times in which we are informed that Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, unelected officials who are among the most powerful of the hawkish neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration with exceptionally close ties to Israel’s Likud Party, ran a group of experts in the Pentagon “who all along felt that this [the war and its aftermath] was not just going to be a cakewalk [a slang term for something so easy to do that little effort would be needed], it [the whole thing] was going to be 60-90 days, a flip-over and hand-off to Chalabi and the Iraqi National Council. The Department of Defense could then wash its hands of the whole affair and depart quickly, smoothly, and swiftly. And there would be a democratic Iraq that was amenable to our wishes and desires left in its wake. And that’s all there was to it.”

We now know, of course, that the war was indeed fought on these premises and Iraq militarily occupied on just those totally far-fetched imperialist assumptions. Chalabi’s record as informant and banker is, after all, not of the best. And now, no one needs to be reminded of what has happened in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The terrible shambles, from the looting and pillaging of libraries and museums (which is absolutely the responsibility of the US military as occupying power), the total breakdown of the infra-structure, the hostility of Iraqis–who are not after all a homogenous single group–to Anglo-American forces, the insecurity and shortages of daily life in Iraq, and above all, the extraordinary human–I emphasize the word “human”–incompetence of Garner, Bremer and all their minions and soldiers, in adequately addressing the problems of post-war Iraq, all this testifies to the kind of ruinous sham pragmatism and realism of American thinking which is supposed to be in sharp contrast to that of lesser, pseudo- peoples like the Arabs who are full of delusions and a faulty language to boot. The truth of the matter is that reality is neither at the individual’s command (no matter how powerful) nor does it necessarily adhere more closely to some peoples and mentalities than to others. The human condition is made up of experience and interpretation, and those can never be completely dominated by power: they are also the common domain of human beings in history. The terrible mistakes made by Wolfowitz and Leith came down to their arrogant substitution of abstract and finally ignorant language for a far more complex and recalcitrant reality. The appalling results are still before us.

So let us not accept any longer the ideological demagoguery that leaves language and reality as the sole property of American power, or of so-called Western perspectives. The core of the matter is of course imperialism, that (in the end banal) self-assumed mission to rid the world of evil figures like Saddam in the name of justice and progress. Revisionist justifications of the invasion of Iraq and the American war on terrorism that have become one of the least welcome imports from an earlier failed empire, Britain, and have coarsened discourse and distorted fact and history with alarming fluency, is proclaimed by expatriate British journalists in America who don’t have the honesty to say straight out, yes, we are superior and reserve the right to teach the natives a lesson anywhere in the world where we perceive them to be nasty and backward. And why do we have that right? Because those wooly-haired natives whom we know from having ruled our empire for 500 years and now want America to follow, have failed: they fail to understand our superior civilization, they are addicted to superstition and fanaticism, they are unregenerate tyrants who deserve punishment, and we, by god, are the ones to do the job, in the name of progress and civilization. If some of these fickle journalistic acrobats (who have served so many masters that they don’t have any moral bearings at all) can also manage to quote Marx and German scholars–despite their avowed anti-Marxism and their rank ignorance of any languages or scholarship not English–in their favor, then how much cleverer they seem. It’s just racism at bottom though, no matter how dressed up it is.

The problem is actually a deeper and more interesting one than the polemicists and publicists for American power have imagined. All over the world people are all experiencing the quandary of a revolution in thought and vocabulary in which American neo-liberalism and “pragmatism” are made on the one hand by American policy-makers to stand for a universal norm, whereas in fact–as we have seen in the Iraq example I cited above–there are all sorts of slippages and double standards in the use of words like “realism,” “pragmatism,” and other words like “secular” and “democracy” and “pragmatism” that need complete re-thinking and re-evaluation. Reality is too complex and multifarious to lend itself to jejune formulae like “a democratic Iraq amenable to us would result.” Such reasoning cannot stand the test of reality. Meanings are not imposed from one culture on to another, any more than one language and one culture alone possesses the secret of how to get things done efficiently.

As Arabs, I would submit, and as Americans we have too long allowed a few much-trumpeted slogans about “us” and “our” way to do the work of discussion, argument, and exchange. One of the major failures of most Arab and Western intellectuals today is that they have accepted without debate or rigorous scrutiny terms like secularism and democracy, as if everyone knew what those words meant. America today has the largest prison population of any country on earth; it also has the largest number of executions than any country in the world. To be elected President, you need not win the popular vote, but you must spend over 200 million dollars. How do these things pass the test of “liberal democracy?”

So rather than have the terms of debate organized without skepticism around a few sloppy terms like “democracy” and “liberalism” or around unexamined conceptions of “terrorism”, “backwardness,” and “extremism,” we should be pressing for a more exacting, a more demanding kind of discussion in which terms are defined from numerous viewpoints and are always placed in concrete historical circumstances. The great danger is that American “magical” thinking à la Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush is being passed off as the supreme standard for all peoples and languages to follow. In my opinion, and if Iraq is a salient example, then we must not allow that simply to occur without strenuous debate and probing analysis, and we mustn’t be cowed into believing that Washington’s power is so irresistibly awesome. And so far as the Middle East is concerned, the discussion must include Arabs and Muslims and Israelis and Jews as equal participants. I urge everyone to join in and not leave the field of values, definitions, and cultures uncontested. They are certainly not the property of a few Washington officials, any more than they are the responsibility of a few Middle Eastern rulers. There is a common field of human undertaking being created and recreated, and no amount of imperial bluster can ever conceal or negate that fact.

EDWARD SAID is a professor at Columbia University. He is a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair’s forthcoming book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism (AK Press).

© Edward W. Said, 2003.

This article may be reproduced only with the permission of the author.


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/