קנדהנאבקתעלעתידהשלבומברדייהמולבואינגהאמריקניתשמנסהלחסלה. (צילום: Jean Gagnon)
בעידן דונלד טראמפ קנדה נכנסת לכוננות כללית וממשלתה הליבראלית בראשות, ג’סטין טרודו, מנהלת בין היתר מאבק קשה למען עתידו של קונצרן התעופה בומברדייה איירוספייס מקוויבק, שהענקית האמריקנית בואינג מסיאטל מאיימת לחסלו. מאבק האיתנים הזה מתנהל בשולי הדיונים בשינויים בהסכמי הסחר החופשי של צפון אמריקה (נפטה) שהיקפם מוערך בלמעלה מטריליון דולר, המתנהלים בימים אלה בין ממשלות ארה”ב, קנדה ומקסיקו, לאור דרישותיו של הנשיא האמריקני. שלושה סבבים התקיימו כבר בין נציגי המדינות והדרך עוד ארוכה להגיע להסכמות אם בכלל, בזמן שהמשבר הגדול סביב פרשת בואינג-בומברדייה משאיר טעם מר אצל הקנדים, שחוששים מאוד מהתנהלותו המטורפת של טראמפ, המנהל מלחמות עם כול העולם ואשתו, ללא סימפטיה אפילו עם מדובר במדינה הקרובה ביותר לארה”ב בכל המובנים.
ועל מה נסוב המשבר בין שתי יצרניות המטוסים: בואינג טוענת כי בומברדייה קיבלה מענקי סובסידיה מהממשלה הקנדית (373 מיליון דולר) וממשלת קוויבק (מיליארד דולר), שמנוגדים להסכמי הסחר בין המדינות. גם ממשלת בריטניה העניקה סובסידיה לבומברדייה, כיוון שמפעל גדול שלה נמצא בצפון אירלנד ומעסיק כ-4,500 עובדים. כזכור ראש ממשלת בריטניה, תרזה מיי, הצליחה להקים שוב ממשלה, בזכות המפלגה היוניוניסטית הדמוקרטית מצפון אירלנד, והיא רוצה להראות להם שעושה היא הכל למען בומברדייה.
לטענת בואינג הסובסדיות עזרו רבות לבומרדייה להוריד את משמעותית את המחיר בעיסקה עם דלתא (חברת התעופה השנייה בגדולה בארה”ב) שנחתמה ב-2016, לרכישת 125 מטוסים מהסדרה סי שהיא מייצרת. מדובר במטוסים לא גדולים (עד 150 מקומות ישיבה) שמיועדים לטווחי טיסה קצרים ובינוניים בלבד והם נחשבים לחסכוניים בדלק.
בואינג הגישה תביעה כנגד החברה הקנדית למשרד הסחר האמריקני, שפתח בחקירה מואצת ועדיין לא הסתיימה. המשרד החליט עקרונית להטיל מכסים בשיעורים חסרי תקדים של 219% על מכירות מטוסי סדירה סי של בומברדייה, לדלתא ולחברות אמריקניות נוספות, דבר שיהפוך את העיסקות ללא כידאיות. אם באמת יוטל המס הזה יביא הדבר קרוב לוודאי לחיסולה של סדרת הסי, למעט אם בומברדייה תצליח למכור את מטוס הנוסעים החדיש שלה לחברות אירופאיות וסיניות. התאיד הקנדי גם כך מקרטע ולא ברור כלל אם הוא יצליח לשרוד בשנים הבאות, לאור תחרות הולכת וגוברת עם שתי יצרניות המטוסים הענקיות בואינג וארייבוס האירופאית, והיצרנית באותו גודל אמבראר הברזילאית. גם חטיבת הרכבות של התאגיד – בומברדייה טרנספורטיישן (שמספקת רכבות וקטרים לרכבת ישראל) מתקשה לעמוד בתחרות עם יצרניות רכבות שונות, בהן מסין ולאור המיזוג בין סימנס הגרמנית ואלסטום הצרפתית.
הממשלה הקנדית החליטה להשיב מלחמה לכוונות האמריקנים וטרודו לשם שינוי בנאום חריף לתקשורת, הודיע כי ממשלתו לא תדון עם בואינג שתובעת את הממשלה, על עיסקת רכישת שמונים ושמונה מטוסי קרב חדישים לחייל האוויר הקנדי, בהיקפים של בין 15 ל-19 מיליארד דולר. טרודו אף ציין כי ממשלתו נהגה כשורה ובסך הכל היא העניקה הלוואות לבומברדייה. כך טענה גם מיי. הפרמייר של קוויבק, פיליפה קולרד, יצא בחריפות גדולה נגד בואינג על הכוונה לפגוע בבומברדייה, שהמעסיקה אלפי עובדים במחוז. בצרוף כל ראשי האופוזיציה קולרד הודיע כי ינהל מאבק עיקש נגד הגזרות האמריקניות, ושום מטוס או אפילו חלק של בואינג לא יכנס לקנדה כל עוד לא יבוטל המכס הכבד נגד בומברדייה.
בינתיים מתברר כי גם ממשלת ברזיל החליטה לצאת למלחמה נגד בומברדייה באותו נושא שפוגע באמבראר, והיא פנתה כבר לארגון הסחר העולמי.
As the majority of the world sits in shock that a reality TV star was actually voted in to be the next President of the United States (happy or not, y’all have to admit only Michael Moore expected this result!), many awoke Wednesday morning trying to make some sense of it all.
It’s usually around this time that the desperately positive side of me seeks some kind of solace or acceptance by trying to find a silver lining in a seemingly poor situation – that same part of me that has allowed me to be a Vancouver Canucks fan for so many years.
It is with that train of thought that I consider what possible positive outcome might eventually come from the fact that more than 50 million Americans submitted their vote for a man with no international political experience, the temperament of a bully, sexist tendencies and an undeniable ability to look someone in the eye and lie if it suited him in that moment.
There was an intense sense of panic across the country leading up to this election. There was panic from those who feared their country was already falling apart and looked to Trump as their only option for change. There was also panic from those who opposed Trump and feared the type of change he could bring.
It became clear, however, that very few Americans felt that their country was going to be just fine no matter what happened Nov 8.
Perhaps the shocking election of Donald J. Trump was the wake-up call or the shake up the country needed to become more focused on what it needs to do in order to actually become whole again.
If Trump is as ridiculous, ignorant and unprepared as President as he showed to be during his campaign it’s going to become painfully obvious rather fast. In which case the need for dramatic reform could kick the country into high gear, unite leaders in unprecedented ways and refocus the entire country.
Or perhaps Trump becomes humbled by the responsibility of leading the free world, learns on the job quickly and becomes the new type of leader millions of Americans are hoping for. If that happened it would also completely change the way American politics function moving forward.
Of course it’s also possible he leads the country into civil war, alienates millions and sets of world-wide fires that can’t be easily extinguished while the US of A becomes a joke, sending Western society into grave danger. But let’s stay on the possible silver lining track here for a minute!
It is clear that something had to give. Much like when mother nature sets off natural disasters in order to renew herself for the longevity of the planet, perhaps this disaster of an election will do the same for the longevity of the USA.
Perhaps this is the political version of the story of Noah and the flood and America can come out of this disaster ready for a more positive future.
Unfortunately, as many Americans learned while crashing the Canadian immigration website last night, Canada is not the Ark!
Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump upset AIPAC organizers when he criticized President Barack Obama. (photo by David Zam)
There were clear signs of discord in Washington, D.C., as representatives of AIPAC publicly rebuked presidential hopeful Donald Trump after he harshly criticized the sitting president.
At the pro-Israel organization’s policy conference last month, in front of some 18,000 attendees, visibly upset AIPAC president Lillian Pinkus admonished Trump on stage for his remarks a day earlier.
“Whatever policy disagreements we may have, we must not condemn the sitting president on stage,” she said. “There are people in our AIPAC family who were deeply hurt last night and, for that, we are deeply sorry.”
Chairman of the board Robert A. Cohen said that booing and clapping speakers when they attack another person was unacceptable at the event, and that “AIPAC doesn’t pick sides.”
Trump, who was cheered wildly for noting that it was President Barack Obama’s last year in office, said that “Obama rewards our enemies” and “Hillary was a total disaster as secretary of state…. Obama and Hillary have been very bad to Israel. Obama may be the worst thing to happen to Israel.”
Every major party candidate for president spoke at the dais, except the senator from Vermont, Democrat Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish. All candidates who spoke placed heavy emphasis on Iran.
GOP frontrunner Trump didn’t mince words. He called the Iran deal brokered by the P5+1 – the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom plus Germany – “awful” and “bad for Israel, the Middle East and the world.”
The $150 billion channeled to Iran in the agreement, by his reckoning, was “unbelievable” with “nothing in return,” and that the Islamic Republic will have a nuclear bomb within several years.
As president, Trump said he would “stand up to Iran’s aggression” because “I know how to deal with aggression and that’s why I’ll win.”
The Middle East’s terror activity has Iran’s fingerprints all over it, he continued, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, reward money for Palestinian terrorists, and influence in at least two dozen other countries.
“I will dismantle Iran’s global terror network,” Trump said. “We will enforce this deal like you’ve never seen a contract enforced before.”
The New York billionaire mogul and reality TV host took aim at two other threats to Israel, the United Nations and Palestinian terror activity.
“The UN is incompetent and no friend of Israel,” he said. “A [peace] agreement imposed by the UN would be a total disaster. And the U.S. must use our veto, which I will use 100%.”
The Jewish state, he said, has always been willing to strike a deal with its neighbors, noting that prime minister Ehud Barak in 2000 offered nearly the entire West Bank as a Palestinian state, but the offer was dismissed by then-PLO leader Yasser Arafat. Other times, he said, “Palestinian leadership has rejected very good offers.”
Trump noted that, under his purview, the U.S. embassy would move “to the eternal capital of the Jewish state, Jerusalem.”
Texas Senator Ted Cruz, trailing a distant second to Trump in GOP delegates, began his speech, “America will stand with Israel and defeat Islamic terror.”
He spoke about his three trips to Israel as senator, including a visit to Israeli hospitals that treated Syrian refugees. He noted that he had proposed legislation to ban the Iranian ambassador to the UN from entering the United States since he was involved in the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. It passed in both the Senate and House.
Taking a jab at the Obama administration, he said it was “unjust” for them to impose a travel ban on Israel in the summer of 2014. He further called out Democrats for boycotting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech last year at AIPAC.
At AIPAC, Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton advised a three-pronged approach to global security, focusing on Iran, extremism and the attempts to delegitimize Israel. (photo by David Zam)
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, was taken to task for saying that Hamas fires rockets from civilian areas because Gaza is tight for space. “Rather,” said Cruz, “it’s because Hamas are beasts who use human shields.”
As for the “fundamentally immoral” Iran deal, Cruz said he will “rip it to shreds on the first day,” since the Islamic Republic won’t follow it anyway.
“Hear my words Ayatollah Khomeini: If I am president and Iran launches a missile test, we will shoot that missile down,” said Cruz. “And, in January 2017, we will have a commander-in-chief who says under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons: either you will shut down your nuclear program or we will shut it down for you.”
Cruz compared the Iran deal to the failed 1938 agreement between British prime minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler, which led to the Third Reich’s takeover of Czechoslovakia and allowed its continued military build-up.
If elected president, Cruz said he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, yank federal funds from schools that boycott Israel and veto any UN unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
Governor of Ohio John Kasich, running third in the GOP delegate count, noted his 35-year support for Israel and his role in helping erect a Holocaust monument in his state.
He called for the suspension of the Iranian nuclear deal, particularly after recent test missiles in contravention of international treaties. As president, he would “defeat ISIS and stop arms flows to Hezbollah.”
He also spoke out against the boycott, divestment and sanction movement, and antisemitism on campus. On Israel, he noted the “culture of death that the Palestinian leadership has promoted for decades,” and that “Palestinians cannot continue to promote hatred.” In sum, he called Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel.
When she took to the stage, Clinton noted that the “the ideological gap between the parties has increased, but there’s still common agreement on Israel.”
She took a three-pronged approach to global security: Iran’s aggression, the growing tide of extremism, and efforts to delegitimize Israel. “The deal with Iran is making the world safer, including Israel,” she said. “The supreme leader still calls all the shots in Iran, but we should support voices who want to bring change in Iran.”
Regarding other parts of the region, she said that “ISIS must not be contained; it must be defeated.”
On the issue of Israel, she noted that Palestinian leadership has to stop inciting violence. “Children should not be taught to hate in schools,” she said, adding that she would oppose any attempts to “push a [unilateral two-state] solution,” including in the UN. “Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their state,” she said, while adding that Israeli “settlements are not helpful to peace.”
She condemned BDS and said, “we have to fight against it” because “antisemitism has no place in American society.”
Meanwhile, U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden took a risk mentioning to the 18,000 attendees at the policy conference that Israeli “settlements are a barrier in the way of a two-state solution.” That risk was welcomed by a chorus of boos – despite attendees being cautioned by AIPAC leadership to not do so.
Biden insisted that, notwithstanding political differences, the United States is “united in our unwavering commitment to the Jewish state of Israel.”
However, “violent acts of retribution must stop,” he continued, “terror is terror is terror … and it must be stopped.”
The White House “stands with Israel against delegitimization” and believes that “Israel is stronger today because of the Obama-Biden administration,” he said.
Biden touted last year’s Iran deal as a “success,” explaining that many “Iranian facilities are dismantled and destroyed” and that “Iran is further away from the possibility of being nuclear. If Iran violates [the deal] there will be consequences.”
Speaking by video link from Israel, Netanyahu both criticized, and suggested salvaging, the U.S.-brokered Iranian nuclear deal.
“Those who worked for the deal and against the deal can work together to ensure that the deal is followed,” he insisted, noting that, in March, Iran tested a missile that posed a threat to Israel.
“The writing isn’t just on the wall; it’s on the missile,” said Netanyahu.
He said that Israel is singled out for condemnation at the UN and said he hopes the United States will continue its moral voting record at the Security Council.
With regard to Israel’s neighbors, he said Palestinian children are taught to hate, and showed a video of television broadcasts that illustrate his point.
“We cannot compromise with terror and must defeat it,” he said. “We need a two-state solution with a demilitarized Palestinian state.… We are ready for negotiations anywhere and anytime without preconditions.” But, he said, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, “isn’t ready or willing to come” to the negotiating table.
David Zamhas covered political, cultural and historical events for Landmark Report, including the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march as White House-approved press, two AIPAC policy conferences and several other political conventions. He has degrees in history and law.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers is again attacking Israel and urging its members to support the campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction the Jewish state. Last week, the union’s national president, Mike Palecek, sent a communiqué to members packed with boilerplate calls for attacking Israel economically and politically, including a call to end the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
The BDS movement lays bare a stark moral dissonance among so-called “progressives.” In confronting almost every other conflict and issue, these are people who urge discussion, negotiation, compromise, dialogue, conciliation. Except when it comes to Israel.
Why is Israel treated differently in this, as it is in so many other realms?
Obviously, Israel is held to a higher standard, as so many critics have noted, because it is a democracy, it prides itself on human rights and rule of law. However, the standards to which the world holds Israel are impossible ones that no country could measure up to when faced with the continual threats and violence that the country has endured for nearly seven decades.
The Jewish country – given the Bible, the Holocaust, the principles upon which it was founded – is expected to be the quintessence of morality and humanity. Which it might have been capable of, were it not for the fact that those who seek its destruction recognize no parallel standards of morality or humanity.
BDSers and other extreme critics of Israel shield themselves in a blanket rejection of the idea that their ideology could in any way be influenced by negative perceptions of Jews. Be that as it may, Donald Trump, of all people, may have illustrated the situation perfectly while speaking with Jewish Republicans last December.
“Look, I’m a negotiator like you folks; we’re negotiators.… This room negotiates perhaps more than any room I’ve spoken to, maybe more,” he said.
To Trump, being an expert negotiator is a compliment, though compliments often have double edges.
The stereotype of Jews as unconquerable negotiators is a driving force behind BDS. It is so universal a stereotype that Trump didn’t even realize it might be offensive, just as so many BDSers are blind to the bigotry inherent in their worldview.
Consider Sept. 28, 2000. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process was proceeding and an independent Palestinian state was in reach. Then Yasser Arafat left the negotiating table and began the Second Intifada. A decade and a half of continued statelessness for Palestinians has followed, as well as endless violence and thousands more deaths. World reaction should have been to rear up against Arafat’s rejection of negotiation and his return to violence. It wasn’t. Despite all reason, the world nearly unanimously empathized with Arafat’s actions. Why? Because many in the world, consciously or not, hold to ideas that let them believe the Palestinians were never going to get a fair shake. Despite all evidence suggesting that negotiation was leading to a two-state solution, violence was completely understandable because, you know, no one bests the Jews at negotiating.
Of course, there is the other factor – that Arafat seems to never have wanted a two-state solution, but this does not explain the reaction of erstwhile progressives and peace-seekers around the world.
Other stereotypes of Jews also drive the tactics of BDS. Note the two primary targets of the movement. First, it’s about attacking Israel economically. Secondly, it’s about academic boycotts. First, hit them where it hurts: in the pocketbook. Then sock it to them in the intellect.
It is hard not to draw the conclusion that, at its root, BDS is a movement steeped in racism.
When Joe Lieberman was named Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, there was some discussion about the potential for America’s first Jewish vice-president. With the exception of the dustiest corners of the internet, the discussion was respectful and more curious than bigoted. It was probably less heated than the issue of America’s first Catholic president that came up when John F. Kennedy ran in 1960 and, because the Republican base is made up of a great number of evangelical Christians, probably even less significant than Mitt Romney’s Mormonism in 2012.
Now that Bernie Sanders is a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for this year’s U.S. presidential election, there has been almost no discussion of the potential for America’s first Jewish president; the discussion has been far more about the potential for America’s first avowedly socialist president.
After a seemingly interminable campaign, voting begins next week, launching the process of elimination that will determine the Republican and Democratic candidates for president this November. Voters in the first caucus state, Iowa, will gather in church basements and town halls on Feb. 1. In New Hampshire, eight days later, voters will cast ballots in the first primary of the season.
While American politics has always had many differences from European politics, the U.S. version this year seems to reflect, to some degree, the trend in Europe away from the centre. The Republican candidates are largely clustered on the right side of the spectrum, if not the far right. Donald Trump, the leading candidate according to polls, does not fit easily into ideological boxes, but his many very extreme comments appeal to at least some of the people we would describe as far right.
On the Democratic side, Sanders, an erstwhile low-profile junior senator from Vermont, who self-describes as a democratic socialist, is fomenting what is no doubt a very unwelcome sense of déjà vu for the once-presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Clinton was to be the unbeatable Democratic candidate in 2008, until an almost unknown senator from Illinois caught fire and bolted into the White House on a wave of reformist zeal. While not a single ballot has been cast yet in the 2016 battle, Clinton’s inevitability has almost evaporated.
What is it that explains Clinton’s inability to seal the deal, even with voters in her own party?
Part of the issue is her gender. How could it not be? If elected, she would be the first female president. But is gender an advantage or disadvantage for her? Perhaps it is both. Part of the challenge and opportunity Barack Obama faced was around his race. Whether race or gender are, in the end, advantages or disadvantages depends on a huge range of factors, including time and place, and the individual embodying them.
However, perhaps gender, race or religion will be less significant in this election because voters seem to be craving something different altogether. Even left or right may not be such key factors as (apparent) authenticity.
After decades in the public eye, Clinton is a consummate politician. Yet consummate politicians, even exceptional diplomats, are not what Americans seem to be seeking right now. Quite the opposite. American voters, in both parties, seem to be gravitating to unorthodox figures who do not follow scripts. Clinton seems both orthodox and tightly scripted.
Say what you will about Trump, his xenophobia and verbiage seem absolutely authentic. On the other hand, whatever Sanders’ ability or inability may be to get elected and then get any sort of socialistic agenda through Congress, his channeling of Americans’ economic realities and fears appears equally authentic. Both men have captured something in the zeitgeist that scripted politicians have failed to exploit.
And, while the Democrats and Republicans battle it out, a third option looms. There has been talk that, should the Republicans nominate Trump and the Democrats Sanders, a third-party candidate might emerge, appealing to wide swaths of the centre and chunks of both the left and right. Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg – a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent – is seriously considering a run and will announce his intentions by March, associates told the New York Times. Imagine a three-way presidential campaign – with two Jewish candidates. That would be an authentic landmark.
For political nerds, last week offered a cornucopia. A week ago Wednesday, 11 Republican candidates for president of the United States lined up in front of Ronald Reagan’s Air Force One and squabbled, insulted, demeaned and debated one another. The next night, the three leading candidates for prime minister of Canada lined up and, in a more Canadian manner than their American counterparts (albeit, perhaps, in a more American manner than most previous Canadian debates) did much the same thing.
There was plenty to differentiate the two events. The production values of the American version were Hollywoodesque. The Canadian debate looked high schoolish. With 11 candidates in the American debate, content took a back seat to quips and barbs. The Canadian debate was somewhat more substantive.
What was common between the two was an emphasis on immigration and refugees. With the refugee crisis in the Middle East and Europe making front-page news worldwide, and immigration a perennial hot button issue in the United States, candidates came at the topic through particular prisms.
The Republican candidates mostly clamored over one another to burnish their anti-immigrant cred. Who could build the highest, most impenetrable wall along the southern border, it seemed, was the worthiest candidate. The day after the debate, a pro-immigrant organization released a video that contrasted the current crop of candidates’ comments on immigration with those of Ronald Reagan, in whose presidential library the debate took place and who is generally venerated among Republicans.
Reagan, at least in his rhetoric, viewed America as a “shining city on a hill” to which people around the world aspired to come and where, presumably, they would be welcomed. Typifying the prevalent approach of current Republican candidates, Donald Trump said before the debate: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Emma Lazarus Trump is not. The American approach to immigration once – before the 1920s and at intervals since the Second World War – was idealized in Lazarus’ poem, affixed to the Statue of Liberty, and it clearly does not demand “the best” from other countries: “Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore / Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me / I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
It can still evoke chills. Chills that are different from those evoked by the language and views of some of today’s Republicans.
What was encouraging in the Canadian debate the next day was seeing our leaders similarly clamoring over one another, but in this case to burnish their pro-immigration cred.
We recognize that some of the people we welcome have endured great challenges, and need resources and programs to learn the languages of our country, develop or adapt their skills, perhaps recover from deep trauma. Piles of evidence prove that immigrants and refugees who come here succeed brilliantly.
Of course, Jewish Canadians especially may be torn between heart and head on this matter. Our families came here, more often than not escaping repression and violence, and we understand the life-and-death implications of immigration policies.
We also understand that many immigrants and refugees today are coming from places that deliberately inculcate antisemitism in their citizens, who have been known to then act out on these impulses once they move to places where Jews exist. However, the current crisis involves refugees who are fleeing violent jihad and are likely to be among those Canadians who are most vigilant against that form of hatred.
Above all, we need to understand that we are one world. We need to address security challenges at home and confront, with our allies, the sources of those challenges. This security imperative impacts on our immigration policy, but we should not delude ourselves or punish those who need refuge by pretending we can immunize ourselves from world realities by closing our doors.
