The El-Ay Cafe (Pt. 2)

Borys Wrzesnewsky, Liberal Critic of Foreign Affairs, resigned his post today for two reasons: a name that is impossible to spell, and because he was quoted as saying that he supported removing Hezbollah from Canada's list of terrorist organizations. I would applaud that move. Too often in the realm of the Middle East conflict do people become involved and make impassioned speeches with the best of intensions. However, this often leads to visceral statements such as the one made by Mr. Wrzesnewsky. People often think when they delve into this subject matter that they have the solution to the problem, but with a problem as complex and socially scarring as this one, it is really not realistic. People have ideas and react on thoughts and instincts rather than on reasoned thinking and logic. That is a problem. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his caucus have also been criticized for their approach to this conflict, with Mr. Harper's word "measured" (in describing Israel's response to Hezbollah's proximal instigation of the conflict) being dissected and attacked in diatribe throughout the media and blogosphere. Regardless of what I think, it is important for people to think logically about this subject before making statements such as the one mr. Wrezsnewsky made the other day, and I applaud him for having the courage to step down from his position and realizing he made a mistake.

That being said, I think that there is no doubt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Even all ten Liberal leadership candidates agreed that Hezbollah is in fact a terrorist organization. Successsive Liberal governments have called it a terrorist organization, including the current one. Hezbollah carries out sensational attacks on non-combatants, and that is where you draw the line. I believe a posted a picture a while ago as my facebook picture that draws the line between Hezbollah and Israel.

I think that what Wreznewsky was actually trying to say is that we should remove them from the list because we want to be able to negotiate with Hezbollah, so that we can differentiate between the political and military wings, and work with the political wing towards a solution to this decades-old conflict. I disagree whole heartedly. There can be no negotiation until Hezbollah disarms and retracts its aim to destroy Israel. Parlimentary Secretary Jason Kenney made a parallel between Hezbollah and Nazi Germany, saying that "there was another political party in the past which had support, democratic support — which provided social services which played an important role in the political life of its country in the 1930s — which was also dedicated to violence against the Jewish people", and I agree with the comparison. We cannot act as the Chamberlains of the 21st century. We failed to disarm Germany properly after Versailles, and we cannot fail to disarm Hezbollah now.

Speaking of Germany, a new restaurant in India has sparked protests from India's very small and, one would assume, marginal Jewish community in Mumbai. This is ridiculous. What kind of eatery names themselves after Hitler? The glorification of a mass murder is kind of extreme, I would think. India has been known to be very touchy in the religious sphere, using the government intervention in social life by banning films like the Da Vinci Code and banning the Danish Muhammed cartoons. While eating pieces of cake, one can socialize under the watchful eye of Hitler's portrait. What a dining experience. This is atrocious.

El-Ay Cafe (Pt. 1)

I've been thinking lately about the accusations made against Iran regarding how they've been supporting Hezbellah in order to draw attention away from their domestic nuclear weapons regime. But you know who has really benefited from this all? The Americans. In no way am I trying to suggest that the Americans support Hezbollah or that there is some sort of conspiracy, but they have really benefited from this crisis in regard to media coverage of Iraq. I've seen very little emphasis on Iraq recently, and when Bush and Blair met recently, I didn't hear any questions on Iraq. There have been huge bombings in Iraq lately, and sectarian violence continuing to be on the rise, and certainly there is more bloodshed there than in the area between Lebanon and Israel, but it is covered less. I would argue that Iraq is still more volatile. I mean with a few car bombs, the toll in Iraq could equal that of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict in a day.

Combine this with Castro's health deteriorating (yesterday I actually thought he might have died and this information not released to the public, but after reading a few articles on BBC and CBC I changed my mind), and the situation in the Koreas deteriorating (shots fired from North Korea into South Korea across the DMZ yesterday - two shots from the north, with the south responding with six shots), and you have a pretty volatile world right now.

My socials teacher walked into our classroom to absolute silence on the morning of September 11th. He grabbed the map that hung by the chalkboard, and it rolled up with a snap. He looked at us and declared, "Today, your world has changed."

The dangers of our generation is extremism of political and religious natures, nuclear proliferation, and the vaccums of power left by deteriorating regimes of a different era that suppressed national self-determination.

Turning to Canada, recent polls indicate that the Conservatives have lost support across the country due to their stance in the Middle East. Many in the media have written about how outrageous it is that the Conservatives are abandoning what they call Canada's traditional policy of neutrality. This just goes to show what happens after thirteen straight years of Liberal Party rule, that their actions were so engrained in society that the population is socialized to believe that whatever happened during their governance is what defines us as a country. Emminent historians have stepped forward to say that this is not, in fact, the case. In most of Canadian history, we have taken a moderately pro-Israeli stance. Speaking of tradition, however, we see that Quebec has always been a fierce advocate of pacifism, going back to World War I and the drafts of WWII. As a result, we see that the Conservatives are losing support there because of this and because of the large Lebanese population in Quebec. The problem is that during the last campaign Harper spent most of his political capital on garnering support in Quebec, and the ground he once gained he is now losing.

What should be done? Switching to neutrality is not a good foreign policy choice. Neutral foreign policies perpetuate a weak foreign policy, as one is seen as quite irrelevant when non-aligned. For Canada to make a difference on the world stage, we must continue with the current policy of siding with a country that is defending itself against a non-governmental organization that purposely targets its civilians. There can be no neutrality when dealing with a terrorist organization.