ICG report on the Gaza stand-still

Efforts should focus on an outcome that meets [Fatah and Hamas'] immediate needs. Neither wants to give up the territory it controls, so for now let them keep it. That should not prevent forming a government that helps rebuild Gaza, gives Ramallah a foothold in Gaza and Abbas the greater legitimacy he needs to deal effectively with Israel – and with his own people...

Words matter, but actions matter more. The international community should judge the government on... willingness (or not) to enforce a mutual ceasefire with Israel, acceptance of Abbas’s authority to negotiate an agreement with Israel and respect for a referendum on an eventual accord. Hamas’s position on whether a Palestinian state would recognise Israel will matter only once that state exists. Prior to that, it is academic.

Sage words. It's hard to believe it's been two years since the last National Unity Government.

Rory Stewart to speak in Ottawa

I've spoken briefly about Rory Stewart in the past. This is an excellent opportunity; while it is free, seating is limited so register early.

Rory Stewart on The Agenda

If you haven't heard Rory Stewart speak, do yourself a favour and watch or listen to Steve Paikin's interview with him on The Agenda.

Toward objective journalism

It seems that every other day I'm reading overtly biased reporting in Canadian newspapers (e.g., coverage of Fredericton MP Andy Scott's resignation and our work in Afghanistan). However, the subject interview gives me some hope for the future, as Jooneed Khan has been writing about the facts for about as long as I've been breathing. Of course, you could look at it as a last bastion, but I'm feeling optimistic today. Here are some highlights from the interview (the emphasis is mine):

My concern has always been that before one can form an opinion, one needs facts--as wide a spectrum of facts as possible. I’ve found that mainstream media selects the facts to bring people to think and look in a certain way; and that was not only incomplete, but a disservice to the reader... I’ve tried to bring those facts which were selected out, and put them together in a coherent way...

[A] very recent example is Lebanon. The hue and cry in the western media... that Hezbollah is radical, that it’s a proxy for Syria and Iran, that it’s threatening Israel, threatening Lebanese democracy. The statements that I’ve heard out of the White House, from Ottawa and Paris constantly reiterate democracy, democracy. I thought, this is a totally artificial debate, which can have dangerous consequences, so I did a piece last week, called the “Democractic Deficit in Lebanon.” I just brought the facts to show that when you have a dictated arrangement--dictated by the US and Saudi Arabia--on the Tyre Agreement, where they have allotted 64 seats to Muslims, 64 seats to Christians on a sectarian basis and you haven’t had a census in the country for 75 years... [E]veryone who has done estimates based on the official figures has come to the conclusion that the Christians today are about 35 per cent of the population. Even the sectarian democracy that they’ve imposed does not reflect the true sectarian makeup of the society...

I wrote about Palestinian rights and Palestinian suffering at the same time as I wrote about South African [a]partheid, and the legitimate rights of the South African majority. I suppose the South African consulate in those days did call my editors once in a while, but since I could not be silenced on my facts, what the paper did was allow colleagues of mine to peddle the official line. So on one page--mostly in the business section--articles [there] were praising the [apartheid] system as a free economy and a bulwark against Communism and an outpost of the free world[, while] I was writing about the Freedom Charter... about exclusion, which was also part of the reality. So you had in the same paper... two views. And I appreciate that. I think newspapers in a free society should reflect the diversity of views.

His anecdote about reporting from Iraq is less hopeful, but doesn't take away from the fact that La Presse's policies do more to promote objective journalism than any other paper's that I've read about.

The Middle East: Canada's bias

First, let me open by acknowledging that the best of this post benefits from many reasoned opinions that I've heard and read over the past week, including those of many folks at CKCU, and The Train. The cock-ups are all mine, however.

Second, while I haven't explored this to date, the United Nations' role in international affairs seems to have diminished over the years; this, in turn, must affect Canada's role in the arena. I accept this premise, and wish my country would succeed in spite of it.

I think Israel's response under the circumstances has been measured.

With this oft-quoted statement, and others, Stephen Harper expressed our country's bias, even as most of us were still struggling with the bad news.

Days later, seven Canadians were killed in an Israeli attack, and current estimates put the Lebanese, mostly civilian, casualties an order of magnitude above those of Israel. My point is not that Harper could have predicted this, but rather, that by throwing our support behind one side in this conflict, he has spoiled any role we could have played in negotiating some dialogue between the two sides, and cheapened our country's proud history in international affairs.

Subsequent statements by our government "urg[ing] all sides to act with restraint and take all measures possible to protect innocent civilian lives" strike me as obligatory.

On protecting Israelis...

While acknowledging that both the Israelis and Hezbollah are on questionable moral ground right now, the idea that Israel is simply protecting its citizens is ridiculous. Setting aside Israel's significant military advantage - which the U.S. is "rushing" to supply, by the way - Hezbollah's capturing Israeli soldiers needs to be considered in the context of the other prisoner exchanges between the two countries.

It's essential that Hezbollah and Hamas release their Israeli prisoners...

But, again, with this sort of rhetoric, Harper shows our, seemingly uneducated (frankly), bias. I'm not saying I agree with negotiated prisoner exchanges, but if Israel legitimized it in the past, one must acknowledge that it's possible that Hezbollah was simply attempting to start another round of negotiations; again, a possibility that Harper doesn't seem consider, let alone refute.

I'm ashamed of my Prime Minister's position is this conflict, and I sincerely hope that it isn't indicative of future Conservative foreign policy.