Adam Goldenberg (A Liberal) and Stephen Taylor (a Conservative) are presently duking it out over the war in Israel. You can find the threat pretty easily.
Goldenberg is suggestion that Israel bears some responsibility for civilian deaths. Taylor was doing what political folk do - defending one side and demonizing the other, period.
I'm not the kind of guy who relishes conflict, particularly martial conflict - not because I'm squeamish, but because I hate waste. Wasted lives, wasted resources, lost time, damaged generations.
So, as is my tendency, I spoke up.
- @adamgoldenberg every time we tut-tut, wring our hands, or call Israel to answer for Hamas' barbarism, we extend Hamas' campaign.
- Remember the days Canada innovated problems to such crises rather than choosing sides? Anyone? @stephen_taylor @adamgoldenberg #Peacekeeping
- @CCEChirps @adamgoldenberg going to guess that Adam thinks this statement is as ludicrous as I do. I side with the democracy, not terror.
Stephen Taylor 
Craig Carter-Edwards
I'm not entirely sure what Taylor means with the ludicrous suggestion - perhaps he didn't get the fact that I was referring to Peacekeeping, as in blue berets, the UN, Lester B Pearson's Nobel prize, etc.
Or, it could be he knew, and doesn't see the connection, or that he knew and thinks the notion of Peacekeeping was ludicrous from the beginning.
I won't judge him either way - I don't know him well enough to know his motivations. Beating him, you see, isn't mine, nor is building my narrative by picking a fight with him.
Hamas is bad - cheap politics and Alpha male aggression taken to extremes. Israel is necessary, for countless reasons. I don't disagree with him that Hamas consists of terrorists, nor that democracy is good.
Perhaps he would agree with me that the dead recognize no borders, nor intentions; a dead Israeli and a dead Palestinian are both equally dead.
I don't want to see anyone dead, especially if the death of a guilty few can only be achieved through the deaths of countless innocents. That's baby, bathwater stuff.
Surely we are more sophisticated than that?
The first step to any conflict resolution is a cessation of hostilities. That requires the participation of both sides. If those sides have allies that are validating the violence and encouraging more of it, backing down becomes much harder to do.
There was a time, as referenced above, when Canada was really good at being a broker; condemning violence, not people; seeking resolution, not one-sided victories. We didn't feel the need to define ourselves by picking sides; we were world-renowned for our ability to find common ground and catalyze solutions.
Is that ludicrous? Maybe, though history would suggest otherwise. Either way, I'd be very interested to know how Taylor defines common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment