Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Rights and Democracy: the other shoe drops

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:06am - 72 Comments

From the Jerusalem Post, today’s absolute must read. The recent uproar over conflicts among government-appointed board members at the Montreal-based “Gongo” (government-sponsored Non-Governmental Organization) Rights and Democracy gets a very different read from a conservative Israeli analyst. For the background on the Rights and Democracy spat, read this story. Then turn to today’s op-ed by Gerald Steinberg in the Jerusalem Post, which heartily praises the group’s new direction. Steinberg also helpfully links the Rights and Democracy controversy to the government’s recent decision to cut funding to the ecumenical group Kairos. Which is odd, because Jason Kenney has angrily denied he meant what he said when he said Kairos’ funding was cut because of its stance on Israel. Perhaps Mr. Steinberg is one memo behind in his Canada briefings. Or one ahead?

Tags: Gerald Steinberg, Jerusalem Post, KAIROS, Rights and Democracy

More by Paul Wells

jolyon

Nice to read something other than The Star's propaganda. The Star article gives you a good idea of how entitled Rights and Democracy members had become – duly appointed members are not mounting a "hostile takeover" as The Star and its source would have it.

This issue sounds like something conservative supporters would support – not sure why Cons aren't trumpeting this more. And I hope Cons make even more changes to these quangos that few people know about but spend a lot of our money on objectionable groups.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I agree with you. I think they are not trumpeting it because they think there are votes to be lost.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

there seems to be little pretense of being quasi-autonomous given the new appointments that PW summarized in the next post.

Amateur Hour

"objectionable groups"

Such as? Based on what definition?
Standing By

I imagine Stockwell Day will be even more open to further input about de-funding organizations that B'nai B'rith and the evangelical alliance doesn't like.

Why?

Because Stock knows this meeting of minds will help bring about the Rapture, in which, he believes, Jesus will return, and all the Jews who won't become Christians get killed.

But that all happens later on, so it doesn't really impede the alliance of the religious right and the Israel lobby, at least for the moment.

Canuckistanian

if I was Israeli I would happily accept funding and support from Christian wackaloons (even if they want me to burn in the coming hellfire) cause you have to be pretty dumb to believe in the rapture.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

reading this op-ed is entirely depressing. it further illuminates how impossible rectifying the situation in the middle east feels. even if some formalized 'solution' (i.e., the two state solution) is too come about, i hold little hope that it will quell the visceral animosity and defensiveness (in the sense of self-justification) both sides of this confrontation seem to feel.
D-R

The Likud party's definition
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

I agree. The saddest part about the ongoing Palestine/Israel debate is that if you think Palestinians are treated unfairly (what rational person would disagree with that?) you are quickly labeled anti-Semitic, and if you think Israel has the right to exist (which is also a rational position) you are quickly labeled a Zionist.

It's a very fractured debate that usually has people forgetting that it is a large majority of innocent people that are the victims of violence because comprise is just too high a price to pay for peace.

You cannot have the world's largest outdoor jail, settlements on occupied lands, continuous rocket attacks and military attacks on civilians in a very anti-Israel region followed by a rational discussion, unfortunately.

jolyon

"Palestinians are treated unfairly (what rational person would disagree with that?)"

Depends of your definition of rational, I guess, but I disagree. Life's unfair, so whinging about unfair treatment is boring and does nothing to advance your argument. Israelis could complain of unfair treatment as much as the Palestinians do.

Palestinians have chosen to turn Gaza into the world's largest outdoor jail, if that's what you are referring to, and no would be happy than Israelis if Palestinians ever decide to turn their land into a normal functioning country. No one is stopping the Palestinians from turning their ocean side land into a lovely country except themselves.

Amateur Hour

Ditto. Also, this is quite ironic in that contentious debates take place in Israeli papers and on Israeli TV all the time. However, if the same debates take place outside of Israel, the dichotomy you describe drowns out any middle or alternate positions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I know next to jack squat about Mideast politics and related policies…but I find it rather astonishing that a party purporting to support human rights (and Isreal) is spending $11M annually on a group that forwards that cash to organizations that, apparently, don't follow that premise – and what's more, that same group resists a full review of how money is being spent. I know NGOs can be more full of political games than the Commons itself, but that's just nutso.

Oh, and "Ed Broadbent, a former Rights and Democracy president from the New Democratic Party, has taken the lead in rejecting calls for transparency and accountability." What? That really doesn't sound like the Ed I know. What happened?

joops

What happened is that you've been provided the wrong info.
Read this Globe article on Ed's position on Rights & Democracy:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ed-b…

And here is his letter to the editor of the G&M: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jan-…

As you will see, Ed is calling for transparency and accountability. What he's NOT calling for is partisan interference and an anti-human-rights agenda.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"but I find it rather astonishing that a party purporting to support human rights (and Isreal) is spending $11M annually on a group that forwards that cash to organizations that, apparently, don't follow that premise – and what's more, that same group resists a full review of how money is being spent."

So you accept Aurel Braun's version of the fact? What if he's lying?

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

What I found astonishing was the premise that a Canadian agency dedicated to human rights is purportedly misusing its funds. I haven't looked at its books and I don't know what's true or not – as I also said, politics in NGOs are just as bad or worse than in government – but I still find the idea of it astonishing.

Joops' response provided a bit more context, though still, I don't think we've got the whole story. As such, I'm promptly shutting my trap.

jolyon

Wells I was just looking to see who Gerald Steinberg is and came across an article he wrote last week for Embassy. Steinberg seems to be writing a lot about Canada recently.

"The intense debate (and some crude political mudslinging) over government funding for KAIROS and Alternatives is indicative of a much wider discussion over the role of powerful civil society groups that combine radical political agendas with humanitarian aid."

http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/steinberg-01-1…

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Perhaps you could explain KAIROS' "radical" agenda.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

yeah exactly. Nich agree fully with your sentiment.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Thank you for proving my point so uneloquently.
Mulletaur

My favourite sentence :

"Ed Broadbent, a former Rights and Democracy president from the New Democratic Party, has taken the lead in rejecting calls for transparency and accountability."

Glad we can count on the New Democrats to be, well, democratic.
kcm

That's not an unreasonable pov – if it hurts continually butting your head against the Israeli brick wall, for god's sake stop doing it! But i doubt it's that simple – it never is. Israel would also seem to have a vested interest in not seeing a prosperous, viable Palistinian state next door…any time soon anyway. It's a horrible mess. Simply lashing out at Israel will solve nothng.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

The West Bank seems a little better off today, then it was 10 years ago (or even 5).

If Abbas can ever gain enough legitimacy to broker a deal…
which is hard considering how Israel keeps b!itch slapping him.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Whatever the reason the funding to Kairos was cut, it was a good decision. Kenney/Wells/Selley are splitting hairs. He may be claiming that it was not the reason the finding was cut. Maybe the primary reason was something else. However, it is a good thing, regardless. Was it really, as Wells puts it, "The five-alarm gong show Kenney kicked off"?

Canuckistanian

"Whatever the reason the funding to Kairos was cut, it was a good decision."

ooh ooh, good point. if the decision to cut Kairos' funding was so the gov't could ramp up its program of murdering and mutilating kittens and puppies, then it was a good decision.

kinda like that earlier hit: "whatever the reason for prorogation, it was a good decision"

Susaan

$11M of unaccountable entitlements annually. How sweet a fiefdom it must be. With friends like this who needs enemies?

lifeonqueen

And you know this how? Do you even know what KAIROS is or the work it does?

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I can't imagine a group that has been treated more fairly. The Israelis literally handed over the entire Gaza strip, uprooting large numbers of people in the process. Then the Palestinians use it to launch rockets into Israel. Seems rather fair to the Palestinians for me. We give you land and you give us rocket fire.

Palestinians that chose to wage war on Israel were displaced (by themselves voluntarily). The rest of them became Israeli citizens. The land itself was owned by the British. Neighbouring countries, all of them have refused to admit any Palestinians into their countries, while at the same time expelling all Jews from their countries.

Palestinians have made their own bed, choosing to wage war against the only middle east country that has ever treated them fairly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

You're the only person to bring up racism. I'd say it's more religious animosity given many countries actions towards non-Muslims in the area.

All I am saying is that the Palestine-Israel situation isn't a one side is correct one side is wrong debate. To oversimplify the situation as such is to polarize discussion in a way that reason and rationality have no role to play.

Both sides made bad choices that have continued to splinter for over half a century. If one continues to beat the drum 'Israel is right no matter what' then it will be another half century before the violence stops.

And stopping the cycle of violence is more important than assigning blame at this point.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

While I agree with your sentiment about viewing the situation in black and white terms,
I think that Amatur Hour did provide a very good point about which side is more intransigent.

A real debate happens in Israel with regard to foreign policy. In Gaza, not so much.

In regards to the CPC not losing votes among the Religious Right, due to a strong pro-Israel position,
I believe you are partially correct, but I don't think they will lose any votes over it…. at all.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Israel does have the advantage of modern infrastructure and aid from the US, in the form of technology and a whole lot of money. Open debate is easier when you have safe water, stable electricity, reliable supplies of food and medicine, free communications…

The Palestinians are a more immediately desperate people. They face one opponent, with unreliable regional regional support while Israel faces many opponents regionally, with Western governments providing reliable support.

It's a headache. Under 10 million people involved in the world's largest pressure cooker…

I didn't comment on CPC and the religious right, but no, they won't lose many votes over this as they have 'communicated' effectively in black and white terms.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

A Nich points out AJR, respectfully, you point that "A real debate happens in Israel with regard to foreign policy. In Gaza, not so much." totally divorces reality from context.

As long as the Isreali-Palestinian-Middle East conversation takes place in the one-ups-manship (whether the contest is who is more wronged, who is more correct, who has done the most damage, etc etc) it is currently bogged down in, we are going nowhere, fast.
Amateur Hour

While I appreciate the reference AJR79, you might have extended my meaning a bit too far. (My fault, surely, for leaving my own thoughts incomplete.) My point should have been extended to both supporters of Israel AND supporters of Palestinians who say one thing at home, and something quite different to audiences abroad. You are correct, though, that the press is more diverse in Israel … however, it might be a bit much to ask for balance from inside an occupied territory such as Palestine.

Reading the Israeli press will show a healthy diversity of opinions. But it's often a challenge to discern what an Israeli government "spokesman" really means as they often say very absolutist things to foreign audiences and supporters of Israel who don't live there — and something much more nuanced and pragmatic at home, where positions need to be a bit more sophisticated. (There are swathes of Israeli's who think Israel should justify its existence as a secular state, not a Jewish one; that occupation has robbed them of their moral authority; that there should be a ONE state solution — a multiracial one; etc.)

Even virulent anti-Arab racists in Israel can come across as genteel scholarly types when interviewed on CNN. Some Palestinian and Hezbollah leaders who, at home, advocate the suicide bombing of Israeli women and children as a religious imperative, still find it in their interest to call for unity and reconciliation when addressing the global press.

Let me be clear: I'm not praising any side – excepting anyone with the bravery to acknowledge that the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict (yes, three sides at least, not two) is a 20th Century monster, not an ancient one.

Peace.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I'm just responding to your comment: "Palestinians are treated unfairly (what rational person would disagree with that?)"

I'd say most rational people would disagree, and I listed my reasons why I disagree, one of them being that the Palestinian hatred of Israelis is not rational at all, it's racist. Even their children's shows (of which there is only one or two) paint Jews as sub-human.
Canuckistanian

"To oversimplify the situation as such is to polarize discussion in a way that reason and rationality have no role to play. "

pssst, that's the point (as the above posters made clear).
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I'd be curious to see what are the bad choices you think the Israelis made.

Should they have let themselves be obliterated in 1948 and 1967 when they were invaded? Should they have refused the British offer to create a nation in their ancestral homeland, when the British split the territory between the Israeli and Palestinian groups? Should they not have handed Gaza over to the Gazans? Should they have allow their neighbours to fire rockets into Israel on a daily basis, rockets that land on the heads of innocent people?

tobyornottoby

I wouldn't trust anything said by the author of this statement:

"In the past, Canada had followed Europe in allowing government-supported human rights and humanitarian aid organizations to be exploited for political warfare, including the demonization of Israel."

That is so subjectively ridiculous and paranoid it makes the red-baiting of the 50's look calm and principled.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Sounds like all the facts aren't out yet, and one opinion piece from Israel may not be enough to settle the discussion…

"A clash within the Canadian government's human-rights agency has sparked allegations that Conservative appointees are bringing Mideast politics into the arms-length organization, and has led four former presidents of Rights and Democracy to demand the Prime Minister preserve its independence.

Ed Broadbent, who was the agency's first president and served for six years, said he believes Stephen Harper's government wants it to cut ties with any foreign group that criticizes Israel.

“They are bringing what can only be described, it seems to me, as Middle East politics, directly into the heart of the centre. Never was there such interference before,” Mr. Broadbent said."

{continued}

"Mr. Broadbent said staff at Rights and Democracy asked Foreign Affairs officials if the Gaza groups were credible and were given a green light."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ed-b…

Mulletaur

So as long as Rights and Democracy was stacked with those prepared to side against Israel and further the NDP's agenda, it was a completely neutral organization. But as soon as Harper appointed people who are likely to be more pro-Israel, this is 'interference' according to Broadbent. Really. That really does sum up what the NDP thinks about democracy. As long as people who agree with their outdated and irrelevant socialist agenda and their anti-Israel hatred are in control, it's democracy. But as soon as somebody with a different view is in control, it's no longer democracy. Really, they have too much in common with the Harperites.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Either that or Broadbent was requesting Harper help preserve the independence of the organization.

You have Conservative government appointees and a right-wing Israeli op-ed writer disagreeing with the opinion of other appointees of the organization and officials with Foreign Affairs.

So, I will repeat, it doesn't sound like all the facts are out yet, so it is difficult to settle the discussion.

jolyon

I think they are mistaken if that's their reason because I don't believe there are that many Con voters who also support dodgy Palestinian groups. I believe there are votes to be won by highlighting what they are doing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

There are a lot of anti-Israeli people, particularly in Montreal and Toronto, where the Tories have long hoped to make inroads.
Consider how many immigrants from the middle east are in those cities, for one thing. But also consider that the University of Toronto has a week-long Israeli-bashing conference. Lots of people are anti-Israeli and wish to see funding for Palestinian groups, regardless of where the money goes.

DPT

I'm sure "Standing By" will explain that shortly. He's jsut a little busy obsessing about "Stock" and the Rapture
jolyon

"Israel would also seem to have a vested interest in not seeing a prosperous, viable Palistinian state next door"

wtf? I would like to hear your explanation for why Israelis want to keep terrorists right next door and not let Gaza develop into a normal functioning country.

kcm

First i should clarify…not all Israelis…mostly the movers and shakers. You said it yourself. There's always the residual fear and risk of those terrorists living next door. Why take a chance on that state not being friendly. Better the devil you know. Take your pick of whatever rationlization. If you believe all Israelis simply desire and believe the Palestinians will become good neighbours you're naive…Israel has politics too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

That's utter nonsense. If they were prosperous, the Israelis would not have to spend so much money and effort treating Palestinians in Israeli hospitals, sending food and other humanitarian aid, and so on.

If the Palestinians were viable they'd be nothing exceptional compared to any other neighbour, like Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. The Gazans will never be more of a threat than Iran and Syria.

Daveyy

only a theory but remember the Cold war where the CIA had a vested interest in exagerating the potential Soviet threat in order to maintain its massive funding to combat the threat it was exagerating…

just a theory though, doesn't Tsahal wield inordinate influence in Israel ? What would be its size and power, should Israel's ennemies turn friendly ?

Just a theory, how much treasure is expended against the Iranian nuclear potential threat ? just a theory though

James Halifax

Well, to be frank………how has Europe treated Jews in the past?

No matter, now that Europe is about to be over-run by extremist Islam…the Jews are probably better off elsewhere in any event. Israel is certainly safer.

Yep..Europe traded in the educated, most productive members of their society, for a welfare demanding, extremist producing population that feels absolutely no solidarity with their new countrymen. Wonder how that's working out for them?

kcm

Europe has its sins and sinners like everywhere else…as to how well it's working out? The last time i was there [5yrs or so ago??] they were living pretty good lives from what i could see…as good and probably better than most Canadians. That help Mark…er James?
Canuckistanian

Steyn called, he wants his racist tropes back.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Not sure it matters all that much, given current enlightened approaches …

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143854.html
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Or, heck: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
lifeonqueen

Oh, look. More smug fabulation from Israel's right wing. Not sure how this counts as a must-read. It's pretty much Israelis SOP: anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite yaddayaddafishcakes. I say we cut funding to everyone and everything within the historical footprint of Palestine. That way both sides will be happy, no?