# An attack on isreal would be considered an attack on Canada



## Kalatzi (16 Feb 2010)

Excerpt from the Globe and Mail

"Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:49 PM

'An attack on Israel would be considered 
an attack on Canada' 
Steven Chase 

Junior Foreign Affairs minister Peter Kent is suggesting Canada stands ready to throw its full military weight behind Israel, telling a Toronto publication that “an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada.” 

His office says Mr. Kent, the minister of state for Foreign Affairs of the Americas, was merely “paraphrasing” what Stephen Harper has said in the past regarding Israel. 

“It’s not too far from what the [Prime Minister] has said,” Norm McIntosh, Mr. Kent’s chief of staff, told The Globe. 

But the junior minister’s statement would appear to be evidence that the Harper government is shifting to an ever more solidly pro-Israel stance.... "

Given how fond the PM is of staff talking to press the response to this should be interesting


----------



## VinceW (16 Feb 2010)

I don't think we should throw our full military weight if Israel were attacked,they're more than capable of handling anything a Muslim country can throw at them.
It's better now that we have a decision on who we stand with,instead of a whishy-washy stance that past governments have had.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Feb 2010)

VinceW said:
			
		

> I don't think we should throw our full military weight if Israel were attacked,they're more than capable of handling anything a Muslim country can throw at them.
> It's better now that we have a decision on who we stand with,instead of a whishy-washy stance that past governments have had.



Wishy washy governments eh?

Considering that Iran wishes Israels's non existance, and most islamic states prohibit no Israeli visas in ANY passports (that would be including yours and mine too - this openly demonstrates thheir stance against Israel), I reckon they are already painted into a corner. Any assistance/assurance they can get from the west including Canada is better for us all, and may prevent something nasty in the future if an allied stance is taken.

I don't know your real world experience or even how old you are but I will say perhaps a lesson or two in ME history would be your your betterment in realising whats going in in the big picture in the real world.

OWDU


----------



## tsokman (17 Feb 2010)

Who is going to attack them anyways I think they have the 4th most powerful army in the world or something plus who knows how many nucleur weapons no one can even inspect-land based and submarine based apparently...


----------



## VinceW (17 Feb 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Wishy washy governments eh?
> 
> Considering that Iran wishes Israels's non existance, and most islamic states prohibit no Israeli visas in ANY passports (that would be including yours and mine too - this openly demonstrates thheir stance against Israel), I reckon they are already painted into a corner. Any assistance/assurance they can get from the west including Canada is better for us all, and may prevent something nasty in the future if an allied stance is taken.
> 
> ...




I'm PRO-Israeli.I don't support Muslim countries stand about a Jewish state being in their neighbourhood.

If Israel is attacked I'm for supporting them militarily,just not all of what this minister is saying.

Although if annilation was going to happen,then we should give our full support.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Feb 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Wishy washy governments eh?


I agree with him, OWDU.  Previous governments were a bit "waffly" when it came to the whole Israel/terror thing.  Just look at the refreshing change in 2006 when PM Harper came out on side of Isreal and was criticised essentially for supporting a legitimate government over a rogue terror organisation.

That's where I saw him coming from.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Feb 2010)

Check the original Globe & Mail article (it's a "journalist's" blog -- not even an actual news story, by the way).

The _fact_ of Peter Kent supposedly saying that “an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada,” is being _interpreted_ as "suggesting Canada stands ready to throw its full military weight behind Israel."

Our "military weight" is currently divided between Afghanistan, Haiti, and Whistler Mountain. In fact, the DFAIT guy was merely stating that an attack on Israel would garner the same response as an attack on Canada -- Iggy wringing his hands, standing up of a Royal Commission, appointing a new Senator or two, and having the incessant bleatings of Ram/Staples/Taylor inflicted upon us.


----------



## SeanNewman (17 Feb 2010)

Are you implying that Scott Taylor does *not* add value to a story???

Pishaw!


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Feb 2010)

VinceW said:
			
		

> I'm PRO-Israeli.I don't support Muslim countries stand about a Jewish state being in their neighbourhood.
> 
> If Israel is attacked I'm for supporting them militarily,just not all of what this minister is saying.
> 
> Although if annilation was going to happen,then we should give our full support.



Fair enough, I read your post incorrect. As I said, any assurance and assistance from the west including Canada would aid them. We know in reality that we cannot give anyone the full weight of Canada's 'wrath' as the CF is taxed very hard as it is.

OWDU


----------



## MaDB0Y_021 (17 Feb 2010)

I don't really think Israel would be in need of assisstance of Canada if they get attacked, but it's good, I guess, to have an alliance with that country.


----------



## Shec (18 Feb 2010)

MaDB0Y_021 said:
			
		

> I don't really think Israel would be in need of assisstance of Canada if they get attacked, but it's good, I guess, to have an alliance with that country.



And that is the real issue here:  the value of the moral support.  When Saddam's Scuds were hitting Israel during the first Gulf War the news that HMCS Toronto was steaming towards the Israeli coast was reported on Israeli news in a positive manner simply because it was viewed as a demonstration of solidarity.   And that bought Canada street cred.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Feb 2010)

Shec said:
			
		

> And that is the real issue here:  the value of the moral support.  When Saddam's Scuds were hitting Israel during the first Gulf War the news that *HMCS Toronto * was steaming towards the Israeli coast was reported on Israeli news in a positive manner simply because it was viewed as a demonstration of solidarity.   And that bought Canada street cred.


"Toronto" wasn't commissioned until 1993, 2 years after GW1
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/toronto/1/1-s_eng.asp?category=8&title=488


----------



## GAP (18 Feb 2010)

> "Toronto" wasn't commissioned until 1993, 2 years after GW1



Uhhhh......that was in the alternate universe, not this one........or is it the other way around?


----------



## Shec (18 Feb 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Toronto" wasn't commissioned until 1993, 2 years after GW1
> http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/toronto/1/1-s_eng.asp?category=8&title=488




OK so it wasn't Toronto.   But it was a Canadian warship.   I know because I got an excited call from relatives over there , to whom anything Canadian is associated with TO,  in the wee hours of the morning thanking me.  Not that I had anything to do with it but hey...


----------

