November 10, 2008: Canadian, U.S. and Israeli elections make this a fascinating time

By Michael Regenstreif

This season has – and will continue to be – a fascinating time for those of us who are highly interested in politics.

As I write, we’re about two weeks past the Canadian federal election and, in a few days, Americans will head into their voting booths. And the Israeli election date has now been set for February 10.

By the time you read this column, the results of the U.S. election will be known. If the polling data available three days before the election holds up – and I’ll be highly surprised if it doesn’t – Senator Barack Obama of Illinois will be the president-elect.

Obama’s election will be a watershed moment in American history – a moment whose great hope and promise Obama will have to work hard to fulfil in the coming years.

The question has been raised often during the very long presidential campaign about what an Obama presidency will mean for Israel. No less an authority than Joe the Plumber, a man Republican candidate Senator John McCain called his “hero,” was quick to agree with the poppycockish statement that “a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel.”

Obama has been a great friend to Israel and I’ve no doubt he will continue to be. His promised engagement in the Middle East peace process, from the very beginning of his mandate – as opposed to George W. Bush, who engaged only at the tail end of his already-failed presidency – is the best hope for peace since Yitzhak Rabin’s tragic assassination.

Ambassador Dennis Ross, a highly respected veteran of Middle East peace negotiations in the administrations of the first George Bush and Bill Clinton, is Obama’s top adviser on Middle East issues. He will be in Ottawa on November 24 to deliver the keynote address at the Negev Dinner. It should be fascinating to hear what he has to say at this important time.

Of course, much will depend on who wins the Israeli election (and whether there will be a Palestinian leadership able to act authoritatively on behalf of its people). Will Israelis choose Kadima’s Livni or Likud’s Netanyahu? They have very different agendas.

And, given Israel’s proportional representation system, to whom will the next Israeli prime minister be beholden when it comes to putting together a governing coalition?

Speaking of proportional representation, it’s been pointed out that, if Canada had such a system, rather than our first-past-the-post system, Parliament would look very different than it does today. The October 14 election results would have given us fewer Conservative and Bloc members and more from the Liberals and NDP. The Green Party, with nearly seven per cent of the popular vote, would have elected about 21 MPs.

Taking the logic to its limit, a party with one-third of one per cent of the vote could be entitled to an MP. Imagine all the single-interest groups who could garner one-third of one per cent of the vote. While Israeli electoral law demands that a party garner two per cent of the vote to be represented in the 120-seat Knesset, the percentage in Canada, with 308 parliamentary seats, would have to be much lower.

Having watched Israeli politics for many years, and having seen how the major Israeli parties have had to dicker for the support of narrowly focused or single-issue parties, I’d think long and hard before introducing such a system here.

October 27, 2008: Observations from the election that was

By Michael Regenstreif

In the headline and introduction to the column below, Alan Echenberg suggests nothing too much changed in the Sukkot election that Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted was needed a year in advance of the fixed election date – that his government passed – despite the fact that the Conservative government had yet to lose the confidence of Parliament.

The party standings remain the same as before the election, but the dynamics are somewhat different. Harper’s Conservatives and Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party (NDP) increased their numbers in the House of Commons with the Bloc Québécois down marginally and the Liberals down big-time. After the last election, the Liberals could have combined with either the Bloc or the NDP to bring down the government – which, of course, they never did – but all three opposition parties will now have to combine to accomplish that. None will be in any hurry.

Harper said he called the election because Parliament had become dysfunctional. Hardly. The Liberals bent over backwards, from the time of the last election in 2006, to allow him to get anything he wanted passed in the House. And, if certain committees weren’t functioning properly, it was generally because of Conservative obstructionism that he could have ended with a snap of his fingers.

The reason Harper called the election was he read the polls and thought the time was ripe to lock in a majority before the looming economic downturn hit. The economic downturn hit faster and harder than expected and he blew his majority by alienating Quebec voters over petty cuts that hit hard at the province’s identity politics.

Heading into the election campaign, the Conservatives were poised for big seat gains at the expense of the Bloc. After passing the recognition that the Québécois form a nation – which is not the same as saying that Quebecers form a nation – and seeing support for Quebec separatism fall to historic lows, Harper had pretty much pushed the Bloc into electoral irrelevance. But then he got petty over a few million dollars in arts cuts that may have played well to his unwavering base in Alberta, but which people in Quebec saw as an assault on their culture. Voilà, the Bloc day was saved and the Conservative majority was gone.

Speaking of the Conservative base in Alberta, the NDP broke through there capturing the former Tory stronghold of Edmonton-Strathcona. This is on top of the party’s retaining Outremont, the former Liberal stronghold in Montreal that Thomas Mulcair captured in a by-election last year. That the NDP actually won seats in Alberta and Quebec is remarkable.

In Ottawa, not one seat changed hands with Conservative, Liberal and NDP incumbents winning seemingly easy re-election in neighbouring ridings. I suspect that the local strength of opposition MPs like Paul Dewar in Ottawa Centre and David McGuinty in Ottawa South and government-side members like John Baird in Ottawa West-Nepean and Pierre Poilievre in Nepean-Carleton had as much to do with their victories as the national campaigns of their parties.

Over the past couple of years, there was speculation that Harper’s unwavering support for Israel would lead many Canadian Jews to swing their traditionally Liberal votes to the Tories. That seems to have been the case in Thornhill, a suburban Toronto-area riding that is home to the largest proportion of Jewish voters in Ontario. Liberal Susan Kadis, who is Jewish and who won the riding with big majorities in 2004 and 2006, was overtaken by Conservative Peter Kent, a well-known broadcaster.

That Liberal-to-Conservative swing among Jewish voters didn’t come close to unseating Liberal Irwin Cotler in the Montreal riding of Mount Royal, the Quebec riding with the highest proportion of Jewish voters. Despite a majority that fell 10 percentage points to 55.7 from 65.6 in 2006, Cotler still finished more than 10,000 votes ahead of Conservative Rafael Tzoubari, his Israeli-born challenger.

Alan Echenberg notes that the Liberals are broke and can’t afford another divisive leadership race. But, even if they can’t afford it, they’re going to have one. Despite increasingly diminished returns in the past three elections, the Liberals still consider themselves a party of power and, after their showing on election night, it is obvious that the earnest Stéphane Dion would either step down or be forced out in a leadership review next May.

One thing that made this election historic was that only 59.1 per cent of Canadians voted; the lowest voter turnout in a federal general election since Confederation. More people couldn’t be bothered to vote – or, in effect, said none of the above – than voted for any party. That’s something all of the parties need to think about before the next election.

 

October 13, 2008: Conservatives, Liberals do differ on Iranian threat

By Michael Regenstreif

Three pages of this edition of the Bulletin are devoted to coverage of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa’s Communications and Community Relations Committee’s roundtable discussions with the three major federal political parties on three major issues of concern to the Jewish community.

We were aware that, because of the timing of the election call, the short campaign and the Sukkot election date, most members of the community will have voted before having an opportunity to read this edition of the Bulletin. That’s why we announced last issue that the coverage would be posted at ottawajewishbulletin.com as soon as possible, and before voting opened in the advance polls. I hope you had a chance to read the coverage online before heading to the polls.

What Canada should do vis-à-vis the threat posed to the world, and in particular to Israel, by Iran’s quest for nuclear weapon capability, especially in light of the incitement to genocide by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of the major topics of discussion.

I’ll get back to the Ottawa candidates’ responses to the issue in a moment, but how meshugah is Ahmadinejad? The logic of his nuclear quest and the threats implicit in his anti-Israel incitements suggest he’d use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel because he sees himself as the great champion of the Palestinians. The Iranian regime, as we know, sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah. The thing is, though, if, God forbid, there were a nuclear attack on Israel and Ahmadinejad was successful in killing all the Jews in the Holy Land, it would also wipe out the Israeli Arabs, the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, and those in the Hezbollah strongholds of Southern Lebanon.

That Ahmadinejad is some champion. He’ll save the Palestinians from the Israelis by wiping out the Palestinians.

But Ahmadinejad’s grandiose talk of wiping Israel off the map is probably not the most likely danger posed by a nuclear Iran. Ahmadinejad knows that an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel would be met in kind by Western nuclear powers. The more likely danger is that the Iranian regime would supply something like a dirty little nuclear bomb in a suitcase to one or more of its terrorist clients.

That kind of danger is not limited to Israel. A suitcase attack could strike anywhere and dwarf the effects of 9/11.

The candidates from all three parties spoke of the need for sanctions against the Iranian regime.

Paul Dewar, the NDP incumbent in Ottawa Centre, talked about how the sanctions needed to be real, not just “paper tiger” sanctions that target future investment in Iran while ignoring ongoing economic ties with the Iranian regime.

John Baird, the Conservative incumbent in Ottawa West-Nepean and a minister in the Harper government, talked about the need for tough sanctions but said he couldn’t commit the government to a course of action.

David Pratt, the former Liberal cabinet minister running against Baird, talked about the need to prevent a nuclear confrontation in the Middle East.

A particularly interesting moment in the meeting with the Liberal candidates came when they were asked if there were policy differences between the Liberals and Conservatives on the Iran issue. Pratt explained that, while their differences were great on domestic issues, there was less room for any differences on such international issues.

I wondered, at that moment, if Pratt was aware of the work of Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, his former cabinet colleague, on the Iran dossier; that is, his efforts to convince Western governments, including Canada’s, to bring Ahmadinejad to international justice for his incitement to genocide. Cotler introduced a bill in Parliament last year calling for Ahmadinejad to be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court for inciting genocide. The bill was rejected by the Conservatives.

The day before the Federation meeting with the two Liberal candidates in Ottawa, Cotler spoke at the massive anti-Ahmadinejad rally in New York and called for the Iranian president to be brought to justice.

The day after the meeting, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion spoke to a Jewish audience in Winnipeg and attacked the Conservative government for rejecting Cotler’s approach. And, in a campaign debate with a Conservative candidate in Montreal, Cotler attacked the Harper government asking, “Why are there four Canadian trade commissioners in Iran right now promoting trade with Iran?”

Clearly, there are policy differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives on the Iran issue. It would appear that the local Liberal candidates did not research that, or were not well briefed, before coming to a meeting where it was bound to be a major topic of discussion.

September 29, 2008: Kadima’s Livni must assemble a working coalition

By Michael Regenstreif

As I write, it’s the day after the Kadima Party election in Israel.

As polls had predicted, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni came out on top, but her margin of victory over Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz was much smaller than anyone seemed to expect, just 431 votes. Livni captured 43.1 per cent of the votes cast while Mofaz took 42 per cent. The vote totals of the other candidates were inconsequential.

Livni has now begun the process of trying to assemble a coalition government. If she’s successful, Livni will become Israel’s second female prime minister after Golda Meir and its first in more than 34 years.

If Livni doesn’t manage to put together a working coalition by the end of October, Israelis will go to the polls in an early general election that will see her vie for the office of prime minister against Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Labor’s Ehud Barak, both of whom are former prime ministers. Opinion polls in advance of the Kadima vote suggested a general election would be a close race between the centrist Livni and the right-wing Likud leader.

I like much of what I’ve seen, so far, of Livni. She is tough, scandal-free – she’s sometimes referred to as ‘Mrs. Clean’ – and has shown the ability to evolve in her thinking.

Livni’s parents were Irgun fighters prior to Israeli independence and her father was a Knesset member representing Likud. She followed her father into Likud and was first elected to the Knesset in 1999 as a protégé of Ariel Sharon.

And just as Sharon evolved in his thinking about the peace process and territorial compromise during his final years as prime minister, so too did Livni as one of his cabinet ministers.

She followed Sharon out of Likud to help establish Kadima as a third-way alternative to Likud and Labor. As foreign minister, Livni has been Israel’s lead negotiator with the Palestinians in Israel’s search for the two-state solution.

Assuming Livni’s success in putting together a coalition, she will, as noted in the JTA report beginning on page 1, have a heavy agenda of priorities that will demand her attention.

* * * * * * * *

The Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, together with Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canada-Israel Committee and the Quebec-Israel Committee, has produced a document called Federal Election 2008: Guide to the Issue for the Community. It lays out what they consider to be the major of issues of concern for the Canadian Jewish community along with suggested questions to ask of candidates and parties.

Reports on the Federation’s Communications and Community Relations Committee’s meetings with the major parties will be published in the October 13 edition of the Bulletin. Unfortunately, that will be too late for anyone who wants to read the articles before voting in the advance polls before the Sukkot election day. Therefore, we’re posting the articles online as soon as possible. In fact, by the time you read this column, the articles should be available ottawajewishbulletin.com.

* * * * * * * *

We have a JTA brief on page 4 that talks about some people being upset that they’ve received Rosh Hashanah cards from the prime minister. A Conservative Party spokesman denied the party had a prepared list of Canadian Jews and declared they hadn’t purchased one.

I’ve read election column notes and letters-to-the-editor in several Canadian dailies from Jewish people wanting to know how the PMO knew they were Jewish and from non-Jews wanting to know why the PMO thought they were Jewish.

A column in the Ottawa Citizen mentioned a Jewish person in Ottawa who “subscribes to no Jewish publications and doesn’t give to any specifically Jewish causes, so he isn’t sure how the PMO got his name.” The Bulletin has not, and would not, supply or sell a list of subscribers to any political party or office. But I’d like to know why I, with a publicly Jewish media job that entails contact with politicians and their staffs, including Conservative cabinet ministers and MPs, didn’t rate a card.

 * * * * * * * *

The June 16 issue of the Bulletin included an article that described how Soloway JCC member Marion Dewar was recovering the use of her injured hand through the centre’s gentle yoga course. Ms. Dewar, the universally respected social activist and former mayor of Ottawa, died earlier this month at age 80 from injuries suffered in a fall while visiting Toronto. We offer our sincere condolences to the Dewar family.