Canadians and the Mid-East

A recent Globe and Mail poll revealed that 77% of Canadians want the PM and Canada to remain neutral on the Mid-East crisis. 45% do not agree with Prime Minister Harper's support of Israel while 32% do.

Let's tackle the 77% group. There is something strange going on here. Implicit in taking such a stance, is that despite our apparent commitment to democracy we choose to not support one in the Mid-East. Is neutrality the best policy on an important issue? We would like Canada to display its magical values but when it is time to project those values on a big stage we seem to want to pull back. Maybe we feel this is not the stage to do it on. Who knows? Canadians should be confident and proud enough to take a stand. We have done so in the past and we should do so now.

Also inherent in this logic - and this also permeates throughout academia - is that the whole crux of the problem begins and ends with the occupation. The "If they would just leave all would be a-ok" belief is a pile of dung that no one truly believes. Worse, the Syrians are claiming this line. Not exactly the country you want to align this line with. More importantly, consulting history of course reveals that the problem is slightly more deep rooted and it doesn't necessarily point towards Israel. Or the U.S. They are just convenient scapegoats. The Jews in particular have always been the convenient black sheep between Islam and Christianity. But I digress.

The people are saying - possibly unwittingly - that democracy can't work in the Mid-East so butt-out. Which in turns means Arabs are not just an unwilling party but incapable of such a experiment.

Conversely, it can be argued that given the right conditions and resources any culture from any society on all four rounded corners on the planet can adopt and adapt to some form of democracy. Arabs seem to adapt just fine in North America which proves being democratically deficient is not genetic. If African tribes removed from modernity can function on some democratic level as some indeed do, then it stands to reason that Arabs - who have more exposure to it - can also. A dab of leadership and voila! The world is theirs.

It would be nice if the UN, Kofi Annan and the world community in general would for once refrain from condemning Israel and for once - just as once - demand that the Arabs begin to face the music and take responsibility for their own actions. We never have strong words for the inept governments of the Middle-East. Why is that? Are we indirectly saying that they are incorrigible?

What's interesting to detect in the 45% group is that they no doubt feel they are a minority. They must look in horror at Harper's courageous position. It's courageous because I never thought I'd see the day where Canada would actually take a stand on major international issues.

We often hear about how voices are being suppressed and that many truths are hidden - thanks to a Zionist plot of course - yet, from what I can tell, it is clear that articles, polls and popular consensus cite Israel as the problem. Take a walk anywhere in North America and stop anyone and see what they say.

Canadians have forgotten what not having a leader means. If anything, Harper is bucking the intellectual trend by ignoring this stupid faux-pas and actually standing on principles. Jean Chretien and his cronies were a bunch of decadent worms who took decisions based on political expediency and passed them as being progressive. It was never about values but rather about preserving Liberal power.

Harper brought back democratic scruples by leading a new Conservative government into power. Canada was fast becoming a 'Mexico of the North' in that we were on our way to being a corrupt, one-party state. Democracy won when Harper was elected - it would have won if anyone had been chosen.

Whether the Conservatives can uphold their own standards is still very much in the air.