Home >> United States & Canada >> Canada - Foreign

     Email   Print 

Ignatieff’s non-apology

Rochelle Wilner - 4/20/2008

Recently the Toronto Star reported on a speech given by Michael Ignatieff at Holy Blossom Temple. “Ignatieff Apologizes for Israeli War Crime Comment” screamed the headline in the Toronto Star’s April 14, 2008 edition. Being keenly interested in these matters I scanned the article for the words, “I am sorry.” Oddly enough the reporter did not quote them. I was more than intrigued and secured a copy of the speech in its entirety. After reading it several times I am compelled to respond.

I found Ignatieff’s speech disturbing on a number of levels and it has done nothing to make me feel better about his comments last summer - actually, it reinforces to me that his comments were an accurate reflection of the way he feels but he regrets ‘getting caught.’

He states he is grateful for the opportunity to ‘clear up this misunderstanding’ and then tries to establish credibility and good will toward Israel by describing his father’s experience and participation hoping, I think, that this will put him in a better light - ridiculous to base his own credibility on the record of his father. Particularly distasteful is his comment, “I count Israelis among my dearest and truest friends” followed by claiming that Isaiah Berlin, a Jew, had an impact on him “deeper than anyone except for my father”. I am not prepared to accuse him of being antisemitic because I don’t know him personally but it is common habit for those who harbour such views to claim that ’some of my best friends are Jewish’ and that these Jewish friends have had a disproportionate influence on them. A poor start to a speech - a forthright admission of error and an apology would have read and been received much better.

But, alas that was not to be - as in the next paragraph he went into an Obama-like defense putting himself in the place of the victim - how badly HE felt when confronted by the error of his words – how badly he felt over “a single remark” that resulted in “many of [his] Jewish friends ….branding [him] an enemy of Israel”. An important lesson here, Mr. Ignatieff – words matter and often words uttered spontaneously reveal more than one would like.

How nice of Mr. Ignatieff to admit that Israel had a right to self-defense BUT had to avoid civilian casualties and disproportionate use of force. NO mention of the fact that Israel ’s enemies hide behind civilians, often children, just for this reason. This puts Israel in a no-win position - if they do retaliate and civilians are injured or killed Israel is then guilty of disproportionate force and going after civilians - if they do not retaliate for fear of this happening they are guilty of not protecting their own citizenry and this is not acceptable. Nor would it be for any state, let alone Israel .

His admission that this was the “most painful error of my political life” speaks volumes. I do not get the impression he is sorry for what he says but he is saying that he is sorry that he got caught. Hypothetically, he questions whether he would have been better off if he had said that Israel “may have failed to comply with the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war” without the accusation of committing war crimes. But this, too, is false. I have taken the time to consult many experts on international law and war crimes and all have expressed the opinion that Israel is guilty of neither. Israel has a right and a responsibility to protect her people and defend her land. What would be wrong would be for Israel to specifically TARGET civilians in acts of aggression. However, Israel cannot be held responsible for civilian casualties if the enemy uses those civilians as human shields while launching military strikes against Israeli territories.

Ignatieff talks a lot about making an error but still offers no apology - there is too much of ‘you should have known what I really meant because you should know that I am a friend and that my party is a friend and what I said isn’t what I meant but I didn’t think I had to explain myself’. Curious, though, how his party showed friendship to Israel . Perhaps at the UN???

He makes reference to what he ‘might’ have said that would have been better understood (Obamaesque?). Had he said that Israel had a right to defend itself and understood that Israel was facing an enemy that didn’t play by the so-called rules and used civilians as human shields, the Jewish community would have understood. Had he said that the other side systematically and deliberately altered evidence about Qana to put Israel in a bad light, the Jewish community would have understood. But he didn’t. He said that Israel had committed war crimes at Qana - and by saying this he was no better and no more right than the enemy who deliberately and systematically altered evidence to put Israel in a bad light. For this the Jewish community had every right to be angry, hurt and feel betrayed.

He says Canada can “never remain neutral between Israel and those enemies - Hamas, Hezbollah , Iran - who deny Israel ’s right to exist, deny the Holocaust and seek her destruction.” It’s breathtaking that he can make this statement after accusing Israel of war crimes or breaching international conventions, of accusing Israel of using disproportionate force, of not taking care to insure no civilian casualties. There is absolutely no recognition of what Israel has to do to survive - only a laundry list of what she can’t do while her enemy not only seeks her destruction but also actively terrorizes to achieve this goal. Certainly, in a state of war, a nation has a moral obligation to use ‘force’ to win - throughout history there have been wars and studies will show that the victors were the ones who used ‘disproportionate force’. Demanding that Israel and only Israel not defend herself on this ground is tantamount to giving victory to the enemy of democracy and civilization as we know it.

What is even more astounding about this comment, (“Canada can never remain neutral between Israel and those enemies – Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran – who deny Israel’s right to exist, deny the Holocaust and seek her destruction”) is the fact that it his Liberal Party that has repeatedly criticized the Harper Government for “revers[ing] Canada’s 50-year record as a neutral ‘broker’ in the Middle East and Michael Ignatieff concurred” (Ted Byfield, Calgary Sun, August 6, 2006) and it is the Harper Government that has shown the courage and moral fortitude to take a principled stand in support of Israel. Ignatieff seems to have mastered the art of ‘turn speak’ – of turning everything upside down – accusing his Harper Conservatives of doing what the Martin/Chretien Liberals have done and taking credit for policies and positions that his party has never fostered but that his opponents support and advocate.

Does he really think he can convince us that his Liberal colleagues have come full circle and have abandoned their ridiculous notion of neutrality or balance in their Middle East policy? Later on in his speech he informs that he must be consistent - that he “must not defend Israel in this house of worship only to betray it in a mosque across town”. I question whether he is really ready to stand in a mosque and announce that “ Canada can never remain neutral between Israel and those enemies” and then live up to the principles of this statement. He will certainly have a challenge to bring his party along with him!

It’s also breathtaking, given the previous Liberal government’s record of voting against Israel at the UN that he can so readily say that his party “will never support one-sided condemnations of Israel” in that forum. Did I read that part correctly? What does he think his party did for 13 years? Is Ignatieff a revisionist on a grand scale?

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s offer of funding for security to the Jewish community is too little too late - for years the Liberal Government was lobbied for aid and for years this request was ignored - it is so obvious that this is a late attempt to deflect some of the negative adversity directed to his party by the Jewish community. Dion and Ignatieff might be challenged to explain why they promise something in opposition that they could have delivered while in government for 13 years. Where were they for 13 years? Why now? Why after the Conservatives have already delivered this initiative for the Jewish community after less than two years in a minority government?

The answer lies somewhere in his opening comments about speculation that the Jewish community will abandon the Liberals in the next election. He scoffs at the suggestion. But, I would suggest the Liberals are concerned about insurmountable swing in the support for the Stephen Harper Conservatives in the next election if and when it comes.

He is very cautious in his commitments – he assures the Jewish community that they still have the ‘ear of the Liberal Party’ – that the Liberal party is “listening”. But what good is “listening” when it doesn’t result in supportive action? He states that the Jewish community has asked if the Liberal Party has “begun to listen to other groups hostile to Canada ” but doesn’t answer. He avoids mentioning the fear his party had of losing ethnic votes to the extent that they refused, on numerous occasions, to add the Tamil Tigers to Canada ’s list of outlawed terror groups and he neglects to report on the support his colleagues gave, despite RCMP and CSIS warnings, when they attended Tiger-front groups’ fundraisers and community events. Most recently, an editorial in the National Post (April 15, 2008) reminded us that two Liberal MP’s, Borys Wrzesnewskyj and Jim Karygiannis, made speeches at the Canadian memorial service held after the 2007 killing of a senior Tamil commander. He also chose not to remind the audience of the Liberal Members of Parliament marching in Montreal, arm-in-arm, with supporters of Hizbollah in the summer of 2006 – the same summer that Michael Ignatieff accused Israel of being guilty of war crimes. These details, I suppose, were left out so the audience wouldn’t doubt his party’s undivided support for democracy and justice.

The last few paragraphs of this speech are in direct contradiction to his sentiments expressed in the earlier part of his speech - either he recognizes that Israel is facing formidable enemies in the north, the south and the middle and has a right to self-defense despite the potential cost of lives or he supports the canard that Israel is guilty of war crimes and the use of disproportionate force (whatever that is). It’s almost as if this speech was written by two different people and they failed to consult with one another. As for me I’ll stick with the consistent, ethical, moral position of Stephen Harper - who says what he means and means what he says - no interpretation necessary!