It's my youth.

Context is for suckers.

That's right wsam, they cut off funding to groups who's activities in the Middle East resulted in terrorist attacks against the only civilized country in the region, that being Israel.

The "variety of groups" you speak of include supporters / members of :

Hamas
Hezbollah,

for example.

Are you saying you are opposed to funding cuts to terrorist groups and their supporters?

The only reference I can find to Ignatieff speaking about B'Tselem is in the context of the Qana bombings. Has he spoken about it since then? It also seems the work funded by R&D is drawn on several times in the Goldstone report. Have the Liberals made any statements on that report? I may have missed it, but the UN reaction to Operation Cast Lead doesn't seem to have gotten much coverage in Canada.

The International Federation for Human Rights, which groups 150 human rights organizations around the world,has condemned the new Board regime, saying that Al-Haq and B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization are members of FIDH and FIDH vouches for their professionalism. See http://www.fidh.org/Preoccupying-infringements-on…

Incidentally, you haven't seen all the stuff I haven't bothered to post on this. That'd have been really annoying.

It's like if you held an Olympics and your largest trading partner sent Joe Biden and Janet Napolitano to pay their country's respects instead of Barack Obama and ANYONE WHO'S NOT JANET NAPOLITANO.

I'm not even a member of the Conservative party. If I often side with Canada's Conservative government, it's probably because I'm a small-c conservative. At times I've also been quite critical of Harper, various ministers, and the Conservative Party, and I can point you to the relevant comments if you like.

There's not a single politician or Conservative of any kind who knows who I am, although I'm sure some would like to. Aside from Maclean's staff, the only person who knows my real identity is Jack Mitchell.

A simple yes/no q: Are you getting compensated to comment here?

As you say, the key thing would be to discover a human rights organisation based in Israel / Palestine that is critical of Israeli practices and has not been accused of having this agenda. A bonus if R&D supports it, but I'm just curious if any such organisation exists. It ain't Oxfam or UNHCR, for example. Perhaps we could rebrand the IDF as a human rights organisation.

Otherwise, it looks very much like Braun & Co. view the documentation and criticism of Israeli human rights abuses as ipso facto proof of an anti-Israel agenda. And I'm sure you agree that is not an acceptable attitude, because it basically takes for granted that Israel can never violate anybody's human rights.

However, the "taking sides" part of my argument was actually peripheral to my larger critique of Gary's "the government is correct by not intervening". I mean, even if one believes that the government would be correct to not intervene, they HAVE intervened.

Harper is actively advertising the changes he's making on Middle East/Israel policy in ways that have been the subject of national news stories. Sadly, we have to wait for the Liberals to contradict him before the media can say there's a debate – and the Liberals won't do that on the substance here. And the media can't report this as a debate between the New Democrats and the other two, I think that's in the Constitution…

Cheerio.

The Conservative government has cut off funds to a variety of groups. Mainly active in the Middle East. For example, they cut off the UN agency which deals with Palestinian refugees because they claimed it lacked accountability. There are many others. Do your own Googling.

I wrote ‘out-sourced’ primarily because Harper is installing neo-conservative right-wing attack dogs in positions where they can shape government policy. We are getting a foreign policy designed by groups like NGO Monitor. Not a foreign policy designed from concepts rooted in Canada’s national interest.

Harper is making small little changes to the way government operates, in ways very few notice. This has always been the overall point, the importance, of this story.

Harper should man up and defend these changes. Stop playing the victim.

Nail. Direct hit.

That reminds me of the kind of neoconian crap logic which drove the US to invade Iraq.

This guy seems to dispute that the Conservatives have been silent about their stance on Israel: \\http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/27/liberals-play-…

Canadians should be informed a) that the government of Canada is adopting a hard-line, uncompromising approach to the Middle East, and b) Canada’s approach to the region is being dictated by a neo-conservative attack group, situated on the hard-right of the political spectrum.

The Harperites should make their case and defend it. Publicly.

Instead we get arguments about process. Who appointed whom and who voted at what meeting – all important, but missing the real point. Or he said, she said nonsense, decrying both sides as worthless ideologues.

Is it Canada’s policy that any attempt to treat Palestinians and their claims fairly is as perfidious as Chamberlain travelling to Munich to meet Hitler? If groups like NGO Monitor are allowed their say, that will be Canada’s position.

Give him credit though, he did admit to the error eventually.

As far as I understand Braun's position, he is complaining that Israel faces unfair criticism on human rights issues by groups that are motivated by a broader political agenda of destabilizing or eliminating Israel and "Rights and Democracy" should avoid funding such groups. If it does consider funding those groups, it should consult the board. If it does fund those groups, it should inform Canadians. Maybe his position is more extreme than that, certainly he's pretty incensed about some of the criticism he's received. I'm no expert on pressure groups in Israel or the territories so it may be that Braun has singled out these groups without good reason. Does R&D not support other groups active in the region or that have criticised Israel? My impression was that they did.

If the Minister is meeting with people, and alsodispatching Associate Deputy Ministers to meet with other people, doesn't that kinda put the lie to the "the government is correct by not intervening" argument?

It's not just the backchannels, though, it's also the initial appointment. Braun is obviously an ideologue of the most extreme type. If you appoint him to be Chairman of the Board, you can't really back away afterwards and say, "Oh, we thought he was a professional! A man of peace! Whaddaya know?" If, for instance, you appointed Don Cherry to the Supreme Court, you might well be held responsible for the degradation of that institution. Scale that back a few knotches and you've got the R&D mess.