It appears that Michael Ignatieff’s views on the Israeli-Lebanon conflict are a little more complex than his column in yesterday’s Globe would indicate. Without the benefit of a campaign team to vet his remarks, a bit of the unvarnished truth came out when he spoke to Star Reporters:
Ignatieff said it would have been too early to push for a ceasefire last week because “it was very important for Israel to send Hezbollah a very clear message” that kidnapping soldiers and firing rockets on Israel will not be tolerated.
“A ceasefire on the Israeli side becomes logical for Israel when it has achieved its military objectives and when it reaches the point of diminishing returns, and that is the point we’ve reached now,” he explained.
He was asked if a turning point came when Israel bombed the Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, with 54 civilian deaths, 37 of them children.
“It wasn’t Qana,” replied Ignatieff, formerly head of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. “Qana was, frankly, inevitable, in a situation in which you have rocket-launchers within 100 yards of a civilian population. This is the nature of the war that’s going on.
“This is the kind of dirty war you’re in when you have to do this and I’m not losing sleep about that.”
So Ignatieff was essentially entirely in line with the Conservative party’s position until yesterday morning? While Harper describes Israel’s actions as a measured response, Ignatieff provides the same cover by describing the death of 37 children as “inevitable” and something that he’s “not losing sleep about”.
I’ve been relatively open to Ignatieff despite his hawkish foreign policy (and strange disappearance) but it’s becoming harder and harder to separate his views from those of the Neo-Cons. It’s going to be interesting to see if he doesn’t start seeing supporters slowly slip away to candidates that are in line with the the Liberal Party’s position on these issues.
